Dataset Information

Strabismus and Artificial Intelligence App: Optimizing Diagnostic and Accuracy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Clinical evaluation of eye versions plays an important role in the diagnosis of special strabismus. Despite the importance of versions, they are not standardized in clinical practice because they are subjective. Assuming that objectivity confers accuracy, this research aims to create an artificial intelligence app that can classify the eye versions into nine positions of gaze.

Methods

We analyzed photos of 110 strabismus patients from an outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital at nine gazes. For each photo, the gaze was identified, and the corresponding version was rated by the same examiner during patient evaluation.

Results

The images were standardized by using the OpenCV library in Python language, so that the patient's eyes were located and sent to a multilabel model through the Keras framework regardless of the photo orientation. Then, the model was trained for each combination of the following groupings: eyes (left, right), gaze (1 to 9), and version (-4 to 4). Resnet50 was used as the neural network architecture, and the Data Augmentation technique was applied. For quick inference via web browser, the SteamLit app framework was employed. For use in Mobiles, the finished model was exported for use in through the Tensorflow Lite converter.

Conclusions

The results showed that the mobile app might be applied to complement evaluation of ocular motility based on objective classification of ocular versions. However, further exploratory research and validations are required.

Translational relevance

Apart from the traditional clinical practice method, professionals will be able to envisage an easy-to-apply support app, to increase diagnostic accuracy.

SUBMITTER: de Figueiredo LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212438 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study assesses the concordance in migraine diagnosis between an online, self-administered, Computer-based, Diagnostic Engine (CDE) and semi-structured interview (SSI) by a headache specialist, both using International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) criteria.BackgroundDelay in accurate diagnosis is a major barrier to headache care. Accurate computer-based algorithms may help reduce the need for SSI-based encounters to arrive at correct ICHD-3 diagnosis.MethodsBetween March 2018 and August 2019, adult participants were recruited from three academic headache centers and the community via advertising to our cross-sectional study. Participants completed two evaluations: phone interview conducted by headache specialists using the SSI and a web-based expert questionnaire and analytics, CDE. Participants were randomly assigned to either the SSI followed by the web-based questionnaire or the web-based questionnaire followed by the SSI. Participants completed protocols a few minutes apart. The concordance in migraine/probable migraine (M/PM) diagnosis between SSI and CDE was measured using Cohen's kappa statistics. The diagnostic accuracy of CDE was assessed using the SSI as reference standard.ResultsOf the 276 participants consented, 212 completed both SSI and CDE (study completion rate = 77%; median age = 32 years [interquartile range: 28-40], female:male ratio = 3:1). Concordance in M/PM diagnosis between SSI and CDE was: κ = 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.91). CDE diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity = 90.1% (118/131), 95% CI: 83.6%-94.6%; specificity = 95.8% (68/71), 95% CI: 88.1%-99.1%. Positive and negative predictive values = 97.0% (95% CI: 91.3%-99.0%) and 86.6% (95% CI: 79.3%-91.5%), respectively, using identified migraine prevalence of 60%. Assuming a general migraine population prevalence of 10%, positive and negative predictive values were 70.3% (95% CI: 43.9%-87.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI: 98.1%-99.3%), respectively.ConclusionThe SSI and CDE have excellent concordance in diagnosing M/PM. Positive CDE helps rule in M/PM, through high specificity and positive likelihood ratio. A negative CDE helps rule out M/PM through high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio. CDE that mimics SSI logic is a valid tool for migraine diagnosis.

Project description:IntroductionStandards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (STARD) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting in studies investigating diagnostic test accuracy. However, its current form, STARD 2015 does not address the issues and challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI)-centred interventions. As such, we propose an AI-specific version of the STARD checklist (STARD-AI), which focuses on the reporting of AI diagnostic test accuracy studies. This paper describes the methods that will be used to develop STARD-AI.Methods and analysisThe development of the STARD-AI checklist can be distilled into six stages. (1) A project organisation phase has been undertaken, during which a Project Team and a Steering Committee were established; (2) An item generation process has been completed following a literature review, a patient and public involvement and engagement exercise and an online scoping survey of international experts; (3) A three-round modified Delphi consensus methodology is underway, which will culminate in a teleconference consensus meeting of experts; (4) Thereafter, the Project Team will draft the initial STARD-AI checklist and the accompanying documents; (5) A piloting phase among expert users will be undertaken to identify items which are either unclear or missing. This process, consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews, will contribute towards the explanation and elaboration document and (6) On finalisation of the manuscripts, the group's efforts turn towards an organised dissemination and implementation strategy to maximise end-user adoption.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Joint Research Compliance Office at Imperial College London (reference number: 19IC5679). A dissemination strategy will be aimed towards five groups of stakeholders: (1) academia, (2) policy, (3) guidelines and regulation, (4) industry and (5) public and non-specific stakeholders. We anticipate that dissemination will take place in Q3 of 2021.

Project description:BACKGROUND. Potential approaches for abbreviated knee MRI, including prospective acceleration with deep learning, have achieved limited clinical implementation. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to evaluate the interreader agreement between conventional knee MRI and a 5-minute 3D quantitative double-echo steady-state (qDESS) sequence with automatic T2 mapping and deep learning super-resolutionaugmentation and to compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods regarding findings from arthroscopic surgery. METHODS. Fifty-one patients with knee pain underwent knee MRI that included an additional 3D qDESS sequence with automatic T2 mapping. Fourier interpolation was followed by prospective deep learning super resolution to enhance qDESS slice resolution twofold. A musculoskeletal radiologist and a radiology resident performed independent retrospective evaluations of articular cartilage, menisci, ligaments, bones, extensor mechanism, and synovium using conventional MRI. Following a 2-month washout period, readers reviewed qDESS images alone followed by qDESS with the automatic T2 maps. Interreader agreement between conventional MRI and qDESS was computed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional MRI, qDESS alone, and qDESS plus T2 mapping were compared with arthroscopic findings using exact McNemar tests. RESULTS. Conventional MRI and qDESS showed 92% agreement in evaluating all tissues. Kappa was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.81) across all imaging findings. In 43 patients who underwent arthroscopy, sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different (p = .23 to > .99) between conventional MRI (sensitivity, 58-93%; specificity, 27-87%) and qDESS alone (sensitivity, 54-90%; specificity, 23-91%) for cartilage, menisci, ligaments, and synovium. For grade 1 cartilage lesions, sensitivity and specificity were 33% and 56%, respectively, for conventional MRI; 23% and 53% for qDESS (p = .81); and 46% and 39% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p = .80). For grade 2A lesions, values were 27% and 53% for conventional MRI, 26% and 52% for qDESS (p = .02), and 58% and 40% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p < .001). CONCLUSION. The qDESS method prospectively augmented with deep learning showed strong interreader agreement with conventional knee MRI and near-equivalent diagnostic performance regarding arthroscopy. The ability of qDESS to automatically generate T2 maps increases sensitivity for cartilage abnormalities. CLINICAL IMPACT. Using prospective artificial intelligence to enhance qDESS image quality may facilitate an abbreviated knee MRI protocol while generating quantitative T2 maps.

Project description:BackgroundEndocytoscopy (EC) is a nuclei and micro-vessels visualization in real-time and can facilitate "optical biopsy" and "virtual histology" of colorectal lesions. This study aimed to investigate the significance of employing artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of endoscopy, specifically in diagnosing colorectal lesions. The research was conducted under the supervision of experienced professionals and trainees.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, and other potential databases were surveyed for articles related to the EC with AI published before September 2023. RevMan (5.40), Stata (14.0), and R software (4.1.0) were used for statistical assessment. Studies that measured the accuracy of EC using AI for colorectal lesions were included. Two authors independently assessed the selected studies and their extracted data. This included information such as the country, literature, total study population, study design, characteristics of the fundamental study and control groups, sensitivity, number of samples, assay methodology, specificity, true positives or negatives, and false positives or negatives. The diagnostic accuracy of EC by AI was determined by a bivariate random-effects model, avoiding a high heterogeneity effect. The ANOVA model was employed to determine the more effective approach.ResultsA total of 223 studies were reviewed; 8 articles were selected that included 2984 patients (4241 lesions) for systematic review and meta-analysis. AI assessed 4069 lesions; experts diagnosed 3165 and 5014 by trainees. AI demonstrated high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity levels in detecting colorectal lesions, with values of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.99). Expert diagnosis was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.94), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.93), and trainee diagnosis was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.79), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.80). With the EC by AI, the AUC from SROC was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97), therefore classified as excellent category, expert showed 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97), and the trainee had 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.82). The superior index from the ANOVA model was 4.00 (1.15,5.00), 2.00 (1.15,5.00), and 0.20 (0.20,0.20), respectively. The examiners conducted meta-regression and subgroup analyses to evaluate the presence of heterogeneity. The findings of these investigations suggest that the utilization of NBI technology was correlated with variability in sensitivity and specificity. There was a lack of solid evidence indicating the presence of publishing bias.ConclusionsThe present findings indicate that using AI in EC can potentially enhance the efficiency of diagnosing colorectal abnormalities. As a valuable instrument, it can enhance prognostic outcomes in ordinary EC procedures, exhibiting superior diagnostic accuracy compared to trainee-level endoscopists and demonstrating comparability to expert endoscopists. The research is subject to certain constraints, namely a limited number of clinical investigations and variations in the methodologies used for identification. Consequently, it is imperative to conduct comprehensive and extensive research to enhance the precision of diagnostic procedures.

Project description:Prostate cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality for adult males in the US. The diagnosis of prostate carcinoma is usually made on prostate core needle biopsies obtained through a transrectal approach. These biopsies may account for a significant portion of the pathologists' workload, yet variability in the experience and expertise, as well as fatigue of the pathologist may adversely affect the reliability of cancer detection. Machine-learning algorithms are increasingly being developed as tools to aid and improve diagnostic accuracy in anatomic pathology. The Paige Prostate AI-based digital diagnostic is one such tool trained on the digital slide archive of New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) that categorizes a prostate biopsy whole-slide image as either "Suspicious" or "Not Suspicious" for prostatic adenocarcinoma. To evaluate the performance of this program on prostate biopsies secured, processed, and independently diagnosed at an unrelated institution, we used Paige Prostate to review 1876 prostate core biopsy whole-slide images (WSIs) from our practice at Yale Medicine. Paige Prostate categorizations were compared to the pathology diagnosis originally rendered on the glass slides for each core biopsy. Discrepancies between the rendered diagnosis and categorization by Paige Prostate were each manually reviewed by pathologists with specialized genitourinary pathology expertise. Paige Prostate showed a sensitivity of 97.7% and positive predictive value of 97.9%, and a specificity of 99.3% and negative predictive value of 99.2% in identifying core biopsies with cancer in a data set derived from an independent institution. Areas for improvement were identified in Paige Prostate's handling of poor quality scans. Overall, these results demonstrate the feasibility of porting a machine-learning algorithm to an institution remote from its training set, and highlight the potential of such algorithms as a powerful workflow tool for the evaluation of prostate core biopsies in surgical pathology practices.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for diagnostics in the field of gastroenterology. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models compared with the gold standard of experts and histopathology for the diagnosis of various gastrointestinal (GI) luminal pathologies including polyps, neoplasms, and inflammatory bowel disease.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases to identify studies assessing the diagnostic performance of AI models for GI luminal pathologies. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data and constructed contingency tables to derive the outcomes of interest: sensitivity and specificity. We performed a meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC). The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of GI luminal disease, AI model, reference standard, and type of data used for analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288360).FindingsWe included 73 studies, of which 31 were externally validated and provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of AI for detecting GI luminal pathologies was 91.9% (95% CI: 89.0-94.1) and specificity was 91.7% (95% CI: 87.4-94.7). Deep learning models (sensitivity: 89.8%, specificity: 91.9%) and ensemble methods (sensitivity: 95.4%, specificity: 90.9%) were the most commonly used models in the included studies. Majority of studies (n = 56, 76.7%) had a high risk of selection bias while 74% (n = 54) studies were low risk on reference standard and 67% (n = 49) were low risk for flow and timing bias.InterpretationThe review suggests high sensitivity and specificity of AI models for the detection of GI luminal pathologies. There is a need for large, multi-center trials in both high income countries and low- and middle- income countries to assess the performance of these AI models in real clinical settings and its impact on diagnosis and prognosis.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=288360], identifier [CRD42021288360].