Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Comparison of the Aireen System with Telemedicine Evaluation by an Ophthalmologist - A Real-World Study

M. Šín, R. Ženíšková, M. Slíva, K. Dvořák, J. Vaľková, J. Bayer, B. Karasová, J. Tesař, D. Fillová, M. Prázný

. 2025 ; 19 (-) : 957-964. [pub] 20250319

Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Nový Zéland

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25008199

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare general ophthalmologists, retina specialists, and Aireen AI screening system with the clinical reference standard of a three-member high-level expert committee for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the evaluation of fundus images for DR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a diagnostic, multicenter, cross-sectional, non-randomized diagnostic study. The cohort included in the clinical investigation consisted of 1274 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) type I or II. Each patient underwent one-field fundus photography using a non-mydriatic camera to assess findings of DR. One hundred and nineteen subjects (9.3%) were excluded from the clinical investigation based on Aireen system assessment. In the clinical investigation, all images were assessed at three independent levels of evaluation: 1) general ophthalmologists (GO) - without subspecialty training in the retina; 2) retina specialists (RS); and 3) system Aireen. In cases where there may be disagreements amongst groups, the image is referred for assessment by the Diabetic Retinopathy Board (DRB). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of any DR was 31.9% (368 cases out of 1154 DM), according to the DRB. Overall concordance between AI system Aireen and GO and RS assessments in the detection of DR from fundus photography occurred in 734 cases (63.6%). The number of disagreements between Aireen system, GO and RS evaluation occurred in 420 (36.4%) cases. Sensitivity for GO was 87.0% (95% CI: 83.6; 90.4), for RS was 82.9% (95% CI: 79.1; 86.7), and for AI system Aireen was 92.1% (95% CI: 89.3; 94.9). Specificity was 76.5% (95% CI: 73.5; 79.5), 81.2% (95% CI: 78.5; 83.9), and 90.7% (95% CI: 88.7; 92.7) for GO, RS and AI system Aireen, respectively. CONCLUSION: This real-world study illustrates the potential use of AI system Aireen in screening for DR. It exhibits higher sensitivity and specificity compared to telemedicine evaluation of one field fundus image.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25008199
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250422095628.0
007      
ta
008      
250408e20250319nz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.2147/OPTH.S511233 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)40125479
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a nz
100    1_
$a Šín, Martin $u Department of Ophthalmology, Military University Hospital Prague, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000250739482 $7 xx0095569
245    10
$a Comparison of the Aireen System with Telemedicine Evaluation by an Ophthalmologist - A Real-World Study / $c M. Šín, R. Ženíšková, M. Slíva, K. Dvořák, J. Vaľková, J. Bayer, B. Karasová, J. Tesař, D. Fillová, M. Prázný
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare general ophthalmologists, retina specialists, and Aireen AI screening system with the clinical reference standard of a three-member high-level expert committee for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the evaluation of fundus images for DR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a diagnostic, multicenter, cross-sectional, non-randomized diagnostic study. The cohort included in the clinical investigation consisted of 1274 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) type I or II. Each patient underwent one-field fundus photography using a non-mydriatic camera to assess findings of DR. One hundred and nineteen subjects (9.3%) were excluded from the clinical investigation based on Aireen system assessment. In the clinical investigation, all images were assessed at three independent levels of evaluation: 1) general ophthalmologists (GO) - without subspecialty training in the retina; 2) retina specialists (RS); and 3) system Aireen. In cases where there may be disagreements amongst groups, the image is referred for assessment by the Diabetic Retinopathy Board (DRB). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of any DR was 31.9% (368 cases out of 1154 DM), according to the DRB. Overall concordance between AI system Aireen and GO and RS assessments in the detection of DR from fundus photography occurred in 734 cases (63.6%). The number of disagreements between Aireen system, GO and RS evaluation occurred in 420 (36.4%) cases. Sensitivity for GO was 87.0% (95% CI: 83.6; 90.4), for RS was 82.9% (95% CI: 79.1; 86.7), and for AI system Aireen was 92.1% (95% CI: 89.3; 94.9). Specificity was 76.5% (95% CI: 73.5; 79.5), 81.2% (95% CI: 78.5; 83.9), and 90.7% (95% CI: 88.7; 92.7) for GO, RS and AI system Aireen, respectively. CONCLUSION: This real-world study illustrates the potential use of AI system Aireen in screening for DR. It exhibits higher sensitivity and specificity compared to telemedicine evaluation of one field fundus image.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Ženíšková, Renata $u Department of Ophthalmology, Military University Hospital Prague, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Slíva, Martin $u Aireen a.s., Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dvořák, Kamila $u Aireen a.s., Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/000000030394099X
700    1_
$a Vaľková, Jozefína $u Aireen a.s., Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bayer, Jan $u Aireen a.s., Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Karasová, Barbora $u Aireen a.s., Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tesař, Jan $u Department of Ophthalmology, Military University Hospital Prague, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fillová, Dana $u Eye Centre Prague a.s., Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Prázný, Martin $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $u 3rd Department of Medicine - Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00165196 $t Clinical ophthalmology $x 1177-5467 $g Roč. 19 (20250319), s. 957-964
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40125479 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250408 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250422095629 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2306301 $s 1245274
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 19 $c - $d 957-964 $e 20250319 $i 1177-5467 $m Clinical ophthalmology $n Clin Ophthalmol $x MED00165196
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250408

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...