-
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
Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Nový Zéland
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2007
Free Medical Journals
od 2007
Freely Accessible Science Journals
od 2007
PubMed Central
od 2007
Europe PubMed Central
od 2007
ProQuest Central
od 2007-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2007-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2007-01-01
Taylor & Francis Open Access
od 2007-12-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2007-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2007
PubMed
40125479
DOI
10.2147/opth.s511233
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
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.
3rd Department of Internal Medicine General University Hospital Prague Prague Czech Republic
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