This is a multi-center, cross-sectional study evaluating a smartphone-based artificial intelligence (AI) system for anterior segment eye disease screening. The system is designed to identify 16 clinically important anterior segment conditions from images captured using a standard Android smartphone. A core design feature of the system is that all image analysis is performed entirely on the smartphone itself, without requiring internet connectivity or cloud-based server infrastructure. The study is motivated by a structural challenge in the deployment of medical AI: systems that depend on cloud infrastructure for inference are non-functional in settings without reliable internet access, which disproportionately excludes populations in low-resource regions where the burden of preventable eye disease is highest. This study evaluates whether an on-device AI system, designed with operational constraints as a primary engineering objective, can deliver clinically acceptable diagnostic performance while remaining operable under real-world connectivity limitations. The study comprises five evaluation components. First, the diagnostic performance of the AI system is benchmarked against board-certified ophthalmologists of varying seniority on a standardized set of smartphone-captured anterior segment images. Second, the usability of the system is evaluated among non-medical users who perform self-administered screening with minimal instruction, with per-screening time recorded across consecutive attempts to characterize the learning curve. Third, a head-to-head field trial directly compares the on-device AI system against a functionally equivalent cloud-based deployment of the same model architecture across key operational dimensions including screening duration, diagnostic performance, and user acceptability. Fourth, population-level screening is conducted among consecutively enrolled community residents at two low-resource sites, with per-disease sensitivity and specificity calculated against reference-standard slit-lamp examinations. Fifth, pre-specified health-economic and environmental analyses compare the two deployment modalities in terms of per-person screening cost, cost-effectiveness, per-inference electricity consumption, and projected carbon emissions at scale. The reference standard for all diagnostic comparisons is slit-lamp biomicroscopic examination performed by board-certified ophthalmologists. The study is designed and reported in accordance with the DECIDE-AI reporting guideline for early-stage clinical evaluation of AI-driven decision-support systems.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Case-level diagnostic accuracy of the AI system compared with board-certified ophthalmologists
Timeframe: Day 1
Diagnostic accuracy of the AI system when operated by non-medical users
Timeframe: Day 1
Sensitivity of the on-device AI system in population-level community screening
Timeframe: Day 1
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of on-device versus cloud-based screening
Timeframe: Day 1
Per-inference electricity consumption of on-device versus cloud-based deployment
Timeframe: Day 1