Clinical Evidences

EyeArt UK NHS 20K Patients Study

Tufail et.al conducted an independent, observational study of 20,258 consecutive patient visits comparing three automated DR screening systems: EyeArt, Retmarker DR, and iGrading. STUDY CONCLUSIONS: Compared to quality assured manual grading, EyeArt v1.0 achieves Acceptable sensitivity for referable DR Sufficient specificity to make it a cost effective alternative Sensitivity and false positive rates for EyeArt

EyeArt REVERE 100,000 Patient Study

The large scale REtrospective Validation of Eyeart in the REal world (REVERE) study assessed the diagnostic efficacy of the EyeArt system screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in 107,001 consecutive diabetic patient visits. DEFINITIONS: DR: diabetic retinopathy NPDR: non-proliferative DR ICDR scale: International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy severity scale with increasing levels of disease severity: No DR,

Artificial Intelligence Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Analysis from a Pivotal Multi-center Prospective Clinical Trial

Purpose Evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI) system to screen people with diabetes at point-of-care for diabetic retinopathy (DR) including diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods We conducted a prospective multi-center study (NCT03112005) in which patients with diabetes were enrolled consecutively initially and later preferentially based on enrichment criteria. The study subjects underwent undilated 2-field fundus photography

EyeArt vs 7-field ETDRS Study

Clinical Validation Study of an automated DR Screening System against 7-field ETDRS Stereoscopic Reference Standard PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: Comprehensive clinical validation of an automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening system, EyeArt v2.0 for detecting referable diabetic eye disease (DED) (moderate nonproliferative DR (NPDR) or higher on the ICDR scale and/or surrogate markers for clinically significant macular