Skip to main content

An AI-Based OCT System to Detect Diabetic Macular Edema: A Prospective Validation and Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial

In brief

AI-OCT cuts false-positive DME referrals by 45 points with no missed cases

In a randomized trial of 276 patients referred from a diabetic eye-screening program, adding AI-based optical coherence tomography reduced false-positive diabetic macular edema referrals from 69.1% to 24.1%, while referral sensitivity remained 100% in both groups. The approach could spare many patients unnecessary specialist visits, but all participants received specialist evaluation, and its performance in other screening systems remains to be established.

Journal
JAMA (Q1)
Published
15 June 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Shuyi Zhang, Anran Ran, Jiaying Zhou, Anni Ling, Kaiser Sham, Yu Zhang, et al.
PMID
42295755
DOI
10.1001/jama.2026.7025

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Ophthalmology (top studies of the week, 11 October 2026): Noninferiority RCT, AI-OCT reduces false‑positive DME referrals

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.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.