Benefits
- Benefit
-
Raised 30-day referral attendance to 51.5% from 39.6% with delayed human grading
Awaiting review
- Outcome identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category
-
Improved Accessibility
Awaiting review
- Status
-
Reported benefit
Awaiting review
- Beneficiary groups
-
People.
Awaiting review
- Beneficiaries
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reach
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Distribution and access
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Duration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Expected?
-
Yes
Awaiting review
- Costs and harms
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
AI system
- System
-
Cybersight AI
Awaiting review
- Model
-
This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Release
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Provider
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Role
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Configuration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Inputs and outputs
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Autonomy
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Workflow
-
The AI returned a grade within 60 seconds of image upload. Clinic staff gave referral advice on the day of screening. The comparison was referral advice three to five days later after human grading.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
People who needed referral were randomly assigned to immediate AI feedback or to delayed human grading, so the difference in uptake is attributable to the immediate AI result.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
People who needed referral were randomly assigned to immediate AI feedback or to delayed human grading, so the difference in uptake is attributable to the immediate AI result.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Randomized. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Study design
-
Randomized. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measurement
-
Presentation at referral services within 30 days. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Setting and sample
-
275 adults with referable findings at four diabetes clinics in and around Kigali, March to July 2021. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measures
-
Referral uptake within 30 days. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Comparison
-
Referral advice after human grading 3 to 5 days later. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Results
-
51.5% vs 39.6% (P = 0.048). [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Additional value from AI
-
11.9 percentage points. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Limitations
-
Small sample; P value close to 0.05; authors employed by the AI provider. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
Money
- Kind of value
-
The kind of monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Amount
-
The monetary value is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Currency and prices
-
The currency and price basis are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Period and unit
-
The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Realization
-
Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Recipients and payers
-
The recipients and payers are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Gross or net
-
Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Included costs
-
The costs included in the estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Comparison
-
The financial comparison is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Method
-
The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Return and payback
-
The return on investment or payback period is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
People and places
- Participants
-
Developer: Orbis International. Operator: Orbis International with the Rwanda International Institute of Ophthalmology, at four diabetes clinics.
Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit: Kigali, Rwanda. Developer:
United States. Operator: Rwanda.Awaiting review
- Ownership and control
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Dependencies
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Cross-border connections
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Geopolitical implications
-
The geopolitical implications are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
Clinics need an internet connection to reach the AI service. Referral services must be reachable for the people referred.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
1 follow-up entry. Benefit recurred: 1.
Awaiting review
- Later findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Availability
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Institutional decision
-
A relevant institutional decision has not been established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Grounds
-
The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Action and result
-
The result of an institutional decision is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Success criterion
-
The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Evidence
- Source numbers
-
AIBD-0648-source-0001–0002
Awaiting review
- Citations
-
Numbered references below.
Awaiting review
- Language
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Source relationships
-
Independent, Developer
Awaiting review
- Original evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Access and versions
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Supported findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and the makers' peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
People.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
People: 2.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
People: 51.5% of people told their AI result at once attended referral services within 30 days against 39.6% of those told after human grading.
Awaiting review
- Observed or intended
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Rubric
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Assessor and date
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Alternative assessments
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Fill
-
Independently studied
Awaiting review
Entry details
- Kind
-
The case describes an evaluation or a study. An investigator-masked parallel-group randomized trial. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
No incident in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026 concerns the same kind of system harming the same kind of stakeholder.
Partly reviewedUnresolved: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026.
- Field
-
Healthcare.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
Cybersight AI was built to grade retinal images for referable diabetic retinopathy. In this trial its immediate result let clinics advise referral on the day of screening; the higher referral uptake was the purpose of that use.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Observed: July 2021. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was used in a pilot. A trial attached to an AI-based screening project at four clinics. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: 9fc68acf6064…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.
References
- Other identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category mappings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Citable summary
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Revisions
-
1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
Sources
-
Peer-reviewed study Independent author
Leigh JA, Sherrington A, Barber ARJ, Turner AW, Kidd M, Powell J, Pope C. Referral uptake after diabetic retinopathy screening with artificial intelligence-assisted care pathways: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digit Med. 2026;9:468. doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02616-3
Mathenge et al.'s RAIDERS RCT ( n = 275) uniquely isolated the effect of immediate versus delayed feedback by randomising patients to immediate AI result acquisition with a colour-coded report based upon severity, or delayed manual grading (3-5 days) with SMS and phone calls to flag results, finding 51.5% versus 39.6% referral uptake respectively
-
Peer-reviewed study Developer
Mathenge W, Whitestone N, Nkurikiye J, et al. Impact of Artificial Intelligence Assessment of Diabetic Retinopathy on Referral Service Uptake in a Low-Resource Setting: The RAIDERS Randomized Trial. Ophthalmol Sci. 2022;2(4):100168. doi:10.1016/j.xops.2022.100168
Referral adherence was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group (70/136 [51.5%]) versus the control group (55/139 [39.6%]; P = 0.048), a 30.1% increase.