» Articles » PMID: 38026608

Artificial Intelligence Improves Patient Follow-Up in a Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

Overview
Journal Clin Ophthalmol
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2023 Nov 29
PMID 38026608
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: We examine the rate of and reasons for follow-up in an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based workflow for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening relative to two human-based workflows.

Patients And Methods: A DR screening program initiated September 2019 between one institution and its affiliated primary care and endocrinology clinics screened 2243 adult patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes without a diagnosis of DR in the previous year in the San Francisco Bay Area. For patients who screened positive for more-than-mild-DR (MTMDR), rates of follow-up were calculated under a store-and-forward human-based DR workflow ("Human Workflow"), an AI-based workflow involving IDx-DR ("AI Workflow"), and a two-step hybrid workflow ("AI-Human Hybrid Workflow"). The AI Workflow provided results within 48 hours, whereas the other workflows took up to 7 days. Patients were surveyed by phone about follow-up decisions.

Results: Under the AI Workflow, 279 patients screened positive for MTMDR. Of these, 69.2% followed up with an ophthalmologist within 90 days. Altogether 70.5% (=48) of patients who followed up chose their location based on primary care referral. Among the subset of patients that were seen in person at the university eye institute under the Human Workflow and AI-Human Hybrid Workflow, 12.0% (=14/117) and 11.7% (=12/103) of patients with a referrable screening result followed up compared to 35.5% of patients under the AI Workflow (=99/279; = 36.70, < 0.00000001).

Conclusion: Ophthalmology follow-up after a positive DR screening result is approximately three-fold higher under the AI Workflow than either the Human Workflow or AI-Human Hybrid Workflow. Improved follow-up behavior may be due to the decreased time to screening result.

Citing Articles

Mitigation of AI adoption bias through an improved autonomous AI system for diabetic retinal disease.

Abramoff M, Lavin P, Jakubowski J, Blodi B, Keeys M, Joyce C NPJ Digit Med. 2024; 7(1):369.

PMID: 39702673 PMC: 11659561. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01389-x.


Modern Approach to Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnostics.

Kapa M, Koryciarz I, Kustosik N, Jurowski P, Pniakowska Z Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(17).

PMID: 39272631 PMC: 11394437. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14171846.


Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Quebec: Prospective Validation Study.

Antaki F, Hammana I, Tessier M, Boucher A, David Jette M, Beauchemin C JMIR Diabetes. 2024; 9:e59867.

PMID: 39226095 PMC: 11408885. DOI: 10.2196/59867.

References
1.
Wilkinson C, Ferris 3rd F, Klein R, Lee P, Agardh C, Davis M . Proposed international clinical diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema disease severity scales. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110(9):1677-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00475-5. View

2.
Mathenge W, Whitestone N, Nkurikiye J, Patnaik J, Piyasena P, Uwaliraye P . Impact of Artificial Intelligence Assessment of Diabetic Retinopathy on Referral Service Uptake in a Low-Resource Setting: The RAIDERS Randomized Trial. Ophthalmol Sci. 2022; 2(4):100168. PMC: 9754978. DOI: 10.1016/j.xops.2022.100168. View

3.
Benoit S, Swenor B, Geiss L, Gregg E, Saaddine J . Eye Care Utilization Among Insured People With Diabetes in the U.S., 2010-2014. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(3):427-433. DOI: 10.2337/dc18-0828. View

4.
Noriega A, Meizner D, Camacho D, Enciso J, Quiroz-Mercado H, Morales-Canton V . Screening Diabetic Retinopathy Using an Automated Retinal Image Analysis System in Independent and Assistive Use Cases in Mexico: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Form Res. 2021; 5(8):e25290. PMC: 8430849. DOI: 10.2196/25290. View

5.
Hatef E, Vanderver B, Fagan P, Albert M, Alexander M . Annual diabetic eye examinations in a managed care Medicaid population. Am J Manag Care. 2015; 21(5):e297-302. View