Cited by 95Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsOphthalmology and Visual Health Research

Results of Automated Retinal Image Analysis for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy from the Nakuru Study, Kenya

Open access
Hansen, Morten B., Abràmoff, Michael D., Folk, James C., Mathenge, Wanjiku, Bastawrous, Andrew, Peto, Tunde·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Digital retinal imaging is an established method of screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR). It has been established that currently about 1% of the world's blind or visually impaired is due to DR. However, the increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus and DR is creating an increased workload on those with expertise in grading retinal images. Safe and reliable automated analysis of retinal images may support screening services worldwide. This study aimed to compare the Iowa Detection Program (IDP) ability to detect diabetic eye diseases (DED) to human grading carried out at Moorfields Reading Centre on the population of Nakuru Study from Kenya. PARTICIPANTS: Retinal images were taken from participants of the Nakuru Eye Disease Study in Kenya in 2007/08 (n = 4,381 participants [NW6 Topcon Digital Retinal Camera]). METHODS: First, human grading was performed for the presence or absence of DR, and for those with DR this was sub-divided in to referable or non-referable DR. The automated IDP software was deployed to identify those with DR and also to categorize the severity of DR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of IDP versus the human grader as reference standard. RESULTS: Altogether 3,460 participants were included. 113 had DED, giving a prevalence of 3.3% (95% CI, 2.7-3.9%). Sensitivity of the IDP to detect DED as by the human grading was 91.0% (95% CI, 88.0-93.4%). The IDP ability to detect DED gave an AUC of 0.878 (95% CI 0.850-0.905). It showed a negative predictive value of 98%. The IDP missed no vision threatening retinopathy in any patients and none of the false negative cases met criteria for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this epidemiological sample, the IDP's grading was comparable to that of human graders'. It therefore might be feasible to consider inclusion into usual epidemiological grading.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0139148

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy severity scale was the most commonly utilized severity scale, used in 15 out of 30 studies.

    “Various severity scales are used to classify diabetic retinopathy (DR), with the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy (ICDR) severity scale being the most commonly utilized in 15 out of 30 studies [9, 11–13, 15, 18, 21–23, 32, 34–36].”

    From Diabetic retinopathy screening model in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Methods section (“The grading protocol and ICDR reference standard”; page unavailable) and Table 1 show that this study used ICDR severity levels, so it supports counting this paper as one example. It does not assess 30 studies or establish that ICDR was the most commonly used scale in 15 of them. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Image acquisition was often performed by trained non-physician staff, while final grading was typically carried out by ophthalmologists or retinal specialists in 22 out of 30 studies.

    “Image acquisition was often performed by trained non-physician staff (technicians, optometrists, nurses, paramedics), while final grading was typically carried out by ophthalmologists or retinal specialists (22/30 studies) [8–13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30–37]”

    From Diabetic retinopathy screening model in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    Methods > Subject recruitment and imaging reports retinal photography and says that human graders at Moorfields Eye Hospitals Reading Centre graded the photographs. It does not identify who acquired the images or establish that its graders were ophthalmologists or retinal specialists. As a single-study report, it also does not provide the cited sentence’s 22/30-studies figure. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Remote grading of retinal images was widely utilized, with 18 out of 30 studies relying on this approach.

    “Remote grading of retinal images is widely utilized, with 18 out of 30 studies relying on this approach [10, 15, 16, 18, 21–27, 29–35, 37]”
  • The predominant method for managing remotely graded images was store and forward (14 out of 30 studies), with seven studies adopting real-time processing.

    “The predominant method for managing these remotely graded images is ‘store and forward’ (14 out of 30 studies) [15, 16, 18, 22–24, 26–30, 33, 35, 37], with seven studies adopting the ‘real-time’ processing method [8, 10, 11, 25, 31, 32, 34]”
  • Studies using AI software such as Iowa Diabetic Retinopathy detection software and EyeArt show high sensitivity up to 95.8% (95% CI 92.9-98.7) and diagnostic accuracy.

    “Studies using AI software, such as the Iowa Diabetic Retinopathy detection software [15] and EyeArt [21] show high sensitivity up to 95,8% (95% CI 92,9–98,7) and diagnostic accuracy [16].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, M. B., Abràmoff, M. D., Folk, J. C., Mathenge, W., Bastawrous, A., & Peto, T.
Affiliations
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Hansen, Morten B.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-10-01
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e0139148
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114785239
Cited by
93
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6
FWCI
6.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Arnold and Mabel Beckman Initiative for Macular Research
  • Synoptik-Fonden
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Department for International Development
  • Syddansk Universitet
  • Familien Hede Nielsens Fond
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ey017066-04)
  • Medical Research Council
  • Biomedical Research Council
  • National Eye Institute (R01-EY017066, R01EY018853)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, automated retinal analysis, diabetic eye disease, sensitivity and specificity, retinopathy severity, digital retinal imaging
MeSH terms
Automation, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Kenya, Retina, Software, Molecular Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review