Two-field non-mydriatic fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy screening: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the most prevalent microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus. Guidelines for DR screening in different countries vary greatly, including fundus photography, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), OCT-A and Fundus Fluorescein Angiography (FFA). Two-field non-mydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) is an effective screening method due to its low cost and less time-consuming process. However, it is controversial due to the sensitivity and specificity of two-field NMFP. This review intends to evaluate the performance of the two-field NMFP in diagnosing DR and helps clinicians determine the most optimal screening method. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers will independently search on the Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, ProQuest, Opengrey, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to identify relevant studies. There is no restriction posed on the language of the study. Included studies focus on the performance of two-field NMFP in detecting DR in diabetes patients. Analysis and evaluation of the studies will be examined by two reviewers independently using the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and later evaluated using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design criteria. A random-effect model will calculate the diagnostic indicators, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic OR, area under the curve and 95% CIs. We will also develop a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We anticipate analysing subgroups according to the factors, which may lead to heterogeneity, including DR levels of patients, the reference standards, camera models, the interpretation criteria. The data will be analysed by STATA software. This study was registered with PROSPERO. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will analyse the published data. Patients/the public were not involved in this research. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203608.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".