Barriers and Enablers Influencing the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is rapidly growing in clinical utility within medicine. This scoping review aims to identify and summarise existing literature on the barriers and enablers of clinical applications of artificial intelligence systems for the screening of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Utilising a systematic approach and the PRISMA-ScR protocol for conducting scoping reviews, searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus and grey literature (Australian Indigenous Health InfoNet). Two reviewers independently reviewed the records. A third reviewer provided consensus. Data extraction and synthesis in narrative form ensued. RESULTS: A total of 3844 articles were screened, of which 18 were selected. Published between 2018 and 2023, the selected studies varied in study design and were conducted across 10 countries. Several barriers and enablers were identified and categorised into four domains: healthcare system, healthcare professional, healthcare user and information technology. Within the healthcare system, clinical efficiency was reported on most frequently. Concerning the healthcare professional, education was most frequently discussed. Within healthcare user, studies most frequently identified factors pertaining to patient outcomes, while diagnostic performance was most frequently explored under the information technology domain. CONCLUSIONS: As evidence for the efficacy of artificial intelligence for diabetic retinopathy screening grows, barriers to and enablers for its uptake in clinical practice are paramount considerations. Translating the knowledge of systems, provider, consumer and technological factors informs clinical strategies, ultimately facilitating the sustainable and effective implementation of this novel technology for screening practices.
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 | 0.084 | 0.303 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".