Implementation of Artificial Intelligence–Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Quebec: Prospective Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects about 25% of people with diabetes in Canada. Early detection of DR is essential for preventing vision loss. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the real-world performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that analyzes fundus images for DR screening in a Quebec tertiary care center. METHODS: We prospectively recruited adult patients with diabetes at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Patients underwent dual-pathway screening: first by the Computer Assisted Retinal Analysis (CARA) AI system (index test), then by standard ophthalmological examination (reference standard). We measured the AI system's sensitivity and specificity for detecting referable disease at the patient level, along with its performance for detecting any retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME) at the eye level, and potential cost savings. RESULTS: This study included 115 patients. CARA demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% CI 71.9-95.0) and specificity of 66.2% (95% CI 54.3-76.3) for detecting referable disease at the patient level. For any retinopathy detection at the eye level, CARA showed 88.2% sensitivity (95% CI 76.6-94.5) and 71.4% specificity (95% CI 63.7-78.1). For DME detection, CARA had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 64.6-100) and 81.9% specificity (95% CI 75.6-86.8). Potential yearly savings from implementing CARA at the CHUM were estimated at CAD $245,635 (US $177,643.23, as of July 26, 2024) considering 5000 patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that integrating a semiautomated AI system for DR screening demonstrates high sensitivity for detecting referable disease in a real-world setting. This system has the potential to improve screening efficiency and reduce costs at the CHUM, but more work is needed to validate it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".