METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of automated BI titration versus conventional care. The literature in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases from January 2000 to February 2022 were searched to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

FINDINGS: Six of the 7 eligible studies (889 patients) were included in meta-analyses. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that patients who use automated BI titration versus conventional care may have a higher probability of reaching a target of HbA1c <7.0% (RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]); and a lower level of HbA1c (MD, -0.25% [95% CI, -0.43 to -0.06%]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in fasting glucose results, incidences of hypoglycemia, severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia, and quality of life, with low to very low certainty for all the evidence.

INTERPRETATION: Automated BI titration is associated with small benefits in reducing HbA1c without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Future studies should explore patient attitudes and the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: We conducted a qualitative systematic review on published literature using AI on retina images to detect systemic diabetes complications. We searched three main databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2024). Research that used AI to evaluate the associations between retinal images and diabetes-associated complications, or research involving diabetes patients with retinal imaging and AI systems were included. Our primary focus was on articles related to AI, retinal images, and diabetes-associated complications. We evaluated each study for the robustness of the studies by development of the AI algorithm, size and quality of the training dataset, internal validation and external testing, and the performance. Quality assessments were employed to ensure the inclusion of high-quality studies, and data extraction was conducted systematically to gather pertinent information for analysis. This study has been registered on PROSPERO under the registration ID CRD42023493512.

FINDINGS: From a total of 337 abstracts, 38 studies were included. These studies covered a range of topics related to prediction of diabetes from pre-diabetes or non-diabeticindividuals (n = 4), diabetes related systemic risk factors (n = 10), detection of microvascular complications (n = 8) and detection of macrovascular complications (n = 17). Most studies (n = 32) utilized color fundus photographs (CFP) as retinal image modality, while others employed optical coherence tomography (OCT) (n = 6). The performance of the AI systems varied, with an AUC ranging from 0.676 to 0.971 in prediction or identification of different complications. Study designs included cross-sectional and cohort studies with sample sizes ranging from 100 to over 100,000 participants. Risk of bias was evaluated by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and AXIS, with most studies scoring as low to moderate risk.

INTERPRETATION: Our review highlights the potential for the use of AI algorithms applied to retina images, particularly CFP, to screen, predict, or diagnose the various microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. However, we identified few studies with longitudinal data and a paucity of randomized control trials, reflecting a gap between the development of AI algorithms and real-world implementation and translational studies.