Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of a System for Automatic Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy From Color Fundus Photographs in a Large Population of Patients With Diabetes

Open access
Abràmoff, Michael D., Niemeijer, Meindert, Suttorp-Schulten, Maria S.A., Viergever, Max A., Russell, Stephen R., van Ginneken, Bram·2008·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the performance of a system for automated detection of diabetic retinopathy in digital retinal photographs, built from published algorithms, in a large, representative, screening population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10,000 consecutive patient visits, specifically exams (four retinal photographs, two left and two right) from 5,692 unique patients from the EyeCheck diabetic retinopathy screening project imaged with three types of cameras at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria included no previous diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, no previous visit to ophthalmologist for dilated eye exam, and both eyes photographed. One of three retinal specialists evaluated each exam as unacceptable quality, no referable retinopathy, or referable retinopathy. We then selected exams with sufficient image quality and determined presence or absence of referable retinopathy. Outcome measures included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (number needed to miss one case [NNM]) and type of false negative. RESULTS—Total area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84, and NNM was 80 at a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.64. At this point, 7,689 of 10,000 exams had sufficient image quality, 4,648 of 7,689 (60%) were true negatives, 59 of 7,689 (0.8%) were false negatives, 319 of 7,689 (4%) were true positives, and 2,581 of 7,689 (33%) were false positives. Twenty-seven percent of false negatives contained large hemorrhages and/or neovascularizations. CONCLUSIONS—Automated detection of diabetic retinopathy using published algorithms cannot yet be recommended for clinical practice. However, performance is such that evaluation on validated, publicly available datasets should be pursued. If algorithms can be improved, such a system may in the future lead to improved prevention of blindness and vision loss in patients with diabetes.

Overview

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 · 10.2337/dc07-1312

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Abràmoff, M. D., Niemeijer, M., Suttorp-Schulten, M. S. A., Viergever, M. A., Russell, S. R., & van Ginneken, B.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2008-02-01
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
193-198
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2136289855
Cited by
277
References
1
FWCI
16.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of a System for Automatic Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy From Color Fundus Photographs in a Large Population of Patients With Diabetes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/dc07-1312
The paper
Abràmoff, M. D., Niemeijer, M., Suttorp-Schulten, M. S. A., Viergever, M. A., Russell, S. R., & van Ginneken, B. (2008). Evaluation of a System for Automatic Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy From Color Fundus Photographs in a Large Population of Patients With Diabetes. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1312

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.