Anything that would increase the rate at which diabetic disease is flagged up from an eye exam would inevitably increase the workload of human reviewers. Is this result really a bad one? Difficult to tell from the article, which implies poor performance but doesn't show the data. e.g. How many true detections were made that would have been (or were) missed by eye docs? Maybe that is in the original research, just not the El Reg snippet.
I guess it ultimately depends on just how many false detections were being made: alarm fatigue is a well-known problem in medical institutions.