Diagnostic Accuracy of Tele-ophthalmology for Diabetic Retinopathy Assessment: A Meta-analysis and Economic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tele-ophthalmology is a screening alternative that facilitates compliance to eye care guidelines regardless of geographic constraints, promoting adequate delivery of health services to underserved communities. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of tele-ophthalmology (TO) programs for the detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR), and used decision-tree modeling to explore its cost-effectiveness compared to in-person examination in a semi-urban scenario. From the 1,060 articles initially identified, 23 met inclusion criteria for data extraction. The diagnostic performance of TO for the detection of any DR and referable DR met the minimum diagnostic criteria by the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (sensitivity >80%, specificity >90%). Interpretation of clinical significance is limited due to significant heterogeneity. Considering a semi-urban scenario, the incremental cost per additional case of any DR detected after the introduction of pharmacy-based TO was $314.1, being more costly and more effective than in-person examination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".