Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
[Preprint]. 2024 Mar 13:rs.3.rs-3979992.
doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3979992/v1.

Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Increases Access and Health Equity in Underserved Populations with Diabetes

Affiliations

Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Increases Access and Health Equity in Underserved Populations with Diabetes

T Y Alvin Liu et al. Res Sq. .

Update in

Abstract

Diabetic eye disease (DED) is a leading cause of blindness in the world. Early detection and treatment of DED have been shown to be both sight-saving and cost-effective. As such, annual testing for DED is recommended for adults with diabetes and is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure. However, adherence to this guideline has historically been low, and access to this sight-saving intervention has particularly been limited for specific populations, such as Black or African American patients. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) De Novo cleared autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnosing DED in a primary care setting. In 2020, Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM), an integrated healthcare system with over 30 primary care sites, began deploying autonomous AI for DED testing in some of its primary care clinics. In this retrospective study, we aimed to determine whether autonomous AI implementation was associated with increased adherence to annual DED testing, and whether this was different for specific populations. JHM primary care sites were categorized as "non-AI" sites (sites with no autonomous AI deployment over the study period and where patients are referred to eyecare for DED testing) or "AI-switched" sites (sites that did not have autonomous AI testing in 2019 but did by 2021). We conducted a difference-in-difference analysis using a logistic regression model to compare change in adherence rates from 2019 to 2021 between non-AI and AI-switched sites. Our study included all adult patients with diabetes managed within our health system (17,674 patients for the 2019 cohort and 17,590 patients for the 2021 cohort) and has three major findings. First, after controlling for a wide range of potential confounders, our regression analysis demonstrated that the odds ratio of adherence at AI-switched sites was 36% higher than that of non-AI sites, suggesting that there was a higher increase in DED testing between 2019 and 2021 at AI-switched sites than at non-AI sites. Second, our data suggested autonomous AI improved access for historically disadvantaged populations. The adherence rate for Black/African Americans increased by 11.9% within AI-switched sites whereas it decreased by 1.2% within non-AI sites over the same time frame. Third, the data suggest that autonomous AI improved health equity by closing care gaps. For example, in 2019, a large adherence rate gap existed between Asian Americans and Black/African Americans (61.1% vs. 45.5%). This 15.6% gap shrank to 3.5% by 2021. In summary, our real-world deployment results in a large integrated healthcare system suggest that autonomous AI improves adherence to a HEDIS measure, patient access, and health equity for patients with diabetes - particularly in historically disadvantaged patient groups. While our findings are encouraging, they will need to be replicated and validated in a prospective manner across more diverse settings.

Keywords: Autonomous artificial intelligence; adherence; diabetic eye disease; diabetic retinopathy; health access; health equity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations Competing Interests: RMW receives research support from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside of the submitted work. The University of Wisconsin receives unrestricted funding from Research to Prevent Blindness. RC is funded by the NIH K23 award 5K23EY030911. MDA reports the following conflicts relevant to the subject matter of this manuscript: Director, Consultant of Digital Diagnostics Inc., Coralville, Iowa, USA; patents and patent applications assigned to the University of Iowa and Digital Diagnostics that are relevant to the subject matter of this manuscript; Exec Director, Healthcare AI Coalition, Washington DC; member, American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) AI Committee; member, AI Workgroup Digital Medicine Payment Advisory Group (DMPAG); Treasurer, Collaborative Community for Ophthalmic Imaging (CCOI), Washington DC; Chair, Foundational Principles of AI CCOI Workgroup.

Similar articles

References

    1. Cheung N, Mitchell P, Wong TY. Diabetic retinopathy. 2010;376. - PubMed
    1. Lin K, Hsih W, Lin Y, Wen C, Chang T. Update in the epidemiology, risk factors, screening, and treatment of diabetic retinopathy. J Diabetes Investig. 2021;12(8):1322–1325. doi:10.1111/jdi.13480 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kuo J, Liu JC, Gibson E, et al. Factors associated with adherence to screening guidelines for diabetic retinopathy among low-income metropolitan Patients. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bragge P. Screening for Presence or Absence of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Meta-analysis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(4):435. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.319 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee PP, Feldman ZW, Ostermann J, Brown DS, Sloan FA. Longitudinal rates of annual eye examinations of persons with diabetes and chronic eye diseases. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(10):1952–1959. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00817-0 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types