Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

AI-OCT reports reduced false-positive DME referral rates from 69.1% to 24.1%AI technology reduces unnecessary referrals for diabetic macular edema

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider using AI-OCT as a secondary screening tool to reduce false-positive DME referrals while maintaining 100% referral sensitivity.

This randomized clinical trial was conducted in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, involving both a tertiary hospital triage unit and a multicenter setting. The study population consisted of patients with diabetes who were suspected of having diabetic macular edema (DME). The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of incorporating AI-OCT reports into the screening workflow compared to standard fundus photograph-based screening.

The trial included 276 participants in the randomized clinical trial phase and an additional 603 patients in a prospective silent-mode validation. In the intervention group (n=137), referrals for DME evaluation were based on both fundus photograph-based screening reports and AI-OCT reports. The control group (n=139) received automatic referrals based solely on fundus photograph-based screening reports.

The primary outcome was the false-positive DME referral rate. The intervention group demonstrated a false-positive rate of 24.1%, compared to 69.1% in the control group. This represents an absolute difference of -45%. The results were statistically significant, with a 95% CI of 14.6%-37.0% for the intervention and 61.0%-76.1% for the control, achieving p <.001 for noninferiority.

Secondary outcomes provided further insight into diagnostic accuracy. The sensitivity for DME detection in the study was 98.8% (95% CI, 94.5%-100.0%). The specificity for DME detection was 90.7% (95% CI, 88.7%-92.4%). Regarding referral metrics, the sensitivity for DME referral was 100.0% in both groups (95% CI, 100.0%-100.0%). The specificity for DME referral was significantly higher in the intervention group at 86.5% (95% CI, 79.3%-92.9%) compared to 0.0% in the control group (95% CI, 0.0%-0.0%).

Safety and tolerability data were not reported for this study, including specific rates of adverse events or discontinuations. The study notes that no cases of DME occurred among nonreferred participants in the intervention group.

These results compare to existing knowledge regarding AI diagnostic tools, which have shown high accuracy but often lack real-world validation. This trial provides a specific clinical application for AI-OCT in reducing unnecessary referrals while maintaining 100% sensitivity for referral. Methodological limitations were not reported.

Clinically, these findings suggest that incorporating AI-OCT as a secondary screening tool is noninferior to standard practice regarding false-positive rates and reduces unnecessary referrals without compromising detection sensitivity. This may streamline triage workflows in ophthalmology clinics. However, questions remain regarding the long-term impact of automated systems on clinician workflow and the specific technical parameters of the AI-OCT algorithm used.

How this fits prior evidence

How this fits prior evidence: This study addresses a gap identified in previous literature where AI diagnostic tools showed high accuracy but lacked real-world validation. By demonstrating a significant reduction in false-positive referral rates from 69.1% to 24.1%, these results provide specific evidence for the utility of AI-OCT in clinical triage. Furthermore, it builds upon existing knowledge that deep learning models show high sensitivity for identifying various stages of diabetic retinopathy.

People living with diabetes often face serious risks to their vision. One specific condition, called diabetic macular edema (DME), involves swelling in the center of the retina. Because this condition can cause permanent vision loss, doctors must screen patients carefully. However, traditional screening methods can sometimes trigger false alarms, leading to unnecessary worry and extra medical appointments for patients who do not actually have the condition.

To address this issue, researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial involving 276 patients with diabetes who were being screened for macular edema. The study compared two different ways of deciding when a patient should be referred for more detailed evaluation. One group was screened using standard fundus photographs alone. The other group was screened using both fundus photographs and an additional AI-powered optical coherence tomography (AI-OCT) report.

The results showed that the group using the AI-supported method had a much lower rate of false-positive referrals. Specifically, only 24.1% of patients in the AI group were referred unnecessarily, compared to 69.1% in the group using standard photos alone. This represents a significant reduction in false alarms. Importantly, the study found that the AI tool did not miss any cases of macular edema; both groups had a 100% sensitivity rate for identifying patients who needed care. The AI-supported method also showed much higher specificity, meaning it was better at correctly identifying those who did not need further referral.

While these results are promising, it is important to keep some context in mind. This study focused on the accuracy of a screening tool rather than a new medical treatment for the eye itself. The trial was conducted in a specific hospital setting, and while the AI showed great promise in reducing unnecessary referrals, every clinical environment may vary.

For patients right now, this research suggests that technology can make the screening process more efficient. By using AI as a secondary check, healthcare providers can help ensure that only those who truly need extra testing are referred for it. This could lead to a smoother experience for patients and less strain on medical resources while still ensuring that everyone with a serious condition is caught early.

What this means for you:
Adding AI-powered imaging to eye screenings can significantly reduce unnecessary referrals for diabetic eye conditions.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 603
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
IMPORTANCE: Screening for diabetic retinopathy using fundus photographs is the global standard of care but results in high false-positive referrals to evaluate diabetic macular edema (DME), placing a substantial burden on specialist eye clinics. Integrating an AI-based optical coherence tomography (AI-OCT) system into screening pathways may reduce potentially unnecessary referrals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic and referral performance of an AI-OCT system for DME detection within a diabetic retinopathy screening pathway in clinical settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Stepwise evaluation conducted in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: a prospective silent-mode validation (February 2020 to July 2023) recruiting 603 patients with diabetes at a tertiary hospital triage unit, followed by a multicenter noninferiority RCT (September 2023 to April 2025), with follow-up completed in May 2025, recruiting 276 patients with suspected DME referred from a territory-wide diabetic retinopathy screening program. INTERVENTIONS: RCT participants were randomized to intervention (referral for DME evaluation based on both fundus photograph-based screening reports and AI-OCT reports [n = 137]) or control (automatic referral based solely on fundus photograph-based screening reports [n = 139]) groups. The AI-OCT system incorporated image-quality assessment, DME detection, and uncertainty flagging. Study outcomes focused on referral rates under the 2 pathways; for ethical reasons, all participants ultimately underwent specialist evaluation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was false-positive DME referral rate, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 20%. The secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity for DME detection and DME referral. RESULTS: In prospective silent-mode validation (mean age, 64.7 [SD, 9.4] years; 56.2% male), 86 of 1200 scans (7.2%) were identified as ungradable and 49 of 1114 gradable scans (4.4%) were classified as uncertain. The system achieved 98.8% (95% CI, 94.5%-100.0%) sensitivity and 90.7% (95% CI, 88.7%-92.4%) specificity for DME detection. In the RCT (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 10.9] years; 54.7% male), DME prevalence was similar in the intervention and control groups (30.9% vs 29.9%). The false-positive DME referral rate was 24.1% (95% CI, 14.6%-37.0%) and 69.1% (95% CI, 61.0%-76.1%), respectively (absolute difference, -45% [95% CI, -58.2% to -31.9%; P < .001 for noninferiority]; upper bound of the CI below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 20%). Sensitivity for DME referral was 100.0% (95% CI, 100.0%-100.0%) in both groups. Specificity for DME referral was 86.5% (95% CI, 79.3%-92.9%) in the intervention group and 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.0%) in the control group. No cases of DME occurred among nonreferred participants in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with standard practice, incorporation of the AI-OCT system as a secondary screening tool was noninferior with respect to false-positive referral rates and was associated with a substantial reduction in potentially unnecessary DME referrals without compromising sensitivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2300075087.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.