Use of artificial intelligence with retinal imaging in screening for diabetes-associated complications: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been used to automate detection of retinal diseases from retinal images with great success, in particular for screening for diabetic retinopathy, a major complication of diabetes. Since persons with diabetes routinely receive retinal imaging to evaluate their diabetic retinopathy status, AI-based retinal imaging may have potential to be used as an opportunistic comprehensive screening for multiple systemic micro- and macro-vascular complications of diabetes. Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review on published literature using AI on retina images to detect systemic diabetes complications. We searched three main databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2024). Research that used AI to evaluate the associations between retinal images and diabetes-associated complications, or research involving diabetes patients with retinal imaging and AI systems were included. Our primary focus was on articles related to AI, retinal images, and diabetes-associated complications. We evaluated each study for the robustness of the studies by development of the AI algorithm, size and quality of the training dataset, internal validation and external testing, and the performance. Quality assessments were employed to ensure the inclusion of high-quality studies, and data extraction was conducted systematically to gather pertinent information for analysis. This study has been registered on PROSPERO under the registration ID CRD42023493512. Findings: From a total of 337 abstracts, 38 studies were included. These studies covered a range of topics related to prediction of diabetes from pre-diabetes or non-diabeticindividuals (n = 4), diabetes related systemic risk factors (n = 10), detection of microvascular complications (n = 8) and detection of macrovascular complications (n = 17). Most studies (n = 32) utilized color fundus photographs (CFP) as retinal image modality, while others employed optical coherence tomography (OCT) (n = 6). The performance of the AI systems varied, with an AUC ranging from 0.676 to 0.971 in prediction or identification of different complications. Study designs included cross-sectional and cohort studies with sample sizes ranging from 100 to over 100,000 participants. Risk of bias was evaluated by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and AXIS, with most studies scoring as low to moderate risk. Interpretation: Our review highlights the potential for the use of AI algorithms applied to retina images, particularly CFP, to screen, predict, or diagnose the various microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. However, we identified few studies with longitudinal data and a paucity of randomized control trials, reflecting a gap between the development of AI algorithms and real-world implementation and translational studies. Funding: Dr. Gavin Siew Wei TAN is supported by: 1. DYNAMO: Diabetes studY on Nephropathy And other Microvascular cOmplications II supported by National Medical Research Council (MOH-001327-03): data collection, analysis, trial design 2. Prognositc significance of novel multimodal imaging markers for diabetic retinopathy: towards improving the staging for diabetic retinopathy supported by NMRC Clinician Scientist Award (CSA)-Investigator (INV) (MOH-001047-00).
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 | 0.013 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".