Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy: Subgroup Comparison of the EyeArt System with Ophthalmologists' Dilated Examinations.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare general ophthalmologists, retina specialists, and the EyeArt Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to the clinical reference standard for detecting more than mild diabetic retinopathy (mtmDR).

Design

Prospective, pivotal, multicenter trial conducted from April 2017 to May 2018.

Participants

Participants were aged ≥ 18 years who had diabetes mellitus and underwent dilated ophthalmoscopy. A total of 521 of 893 participants met these criteria and completed the study protocol.

Testing

Participants underwent 2-field fundus photography (macula centered, disc centered) for the EyeArt system, dilated ophthalmoscopy, and 4-widefield stereoscopic dilated fundus photography for reference standard grading.

Main outcome measures

For mtmDR detection, sensitivity and specificity of EyeArt gradings of 2-field, fundus photographs and ophthalmoscopy grading versus a rigorous clinical reference standard comprising Reading Center grading of 4-widefield stereoscopic dilated fundus photographs using the ETDRS severity scale. The AI system provided automatic eye-level results regarding mtmDR.

Results

Overall, 521 participants (999 eyes) at 10 centers underwent dilated ophthalmoscopy: 406 by nonretina and 115 by retina specialists. Reading Center graded 207 positive and 792 eyes negative for mtmDR. Of these 999 eyes, 26 eyes were ungradable by the EyeArt system, leaving 973 eyes with both EyeArt and Reading Center gradings. Retina specialists correctly identified 22 of 37 eyes as positive (sensitivity 59.5%) and 182 of 184 eyes as negative (specificity 98.9%) for mtmDR versus the EyeArt AI system that identified 36 of 37 as positive (sensitivity 97%) and 162 of 184 eyes as negative (specificity of 88%) for mtmDR. General ophthalmologists correctly identified 35 of 170 eyes as positive (sensitivity 20.6%) and 607 of 608 eyes as negative (specificity 99.8%) for mtmDR compared with the EyeArt AI system that identified 164 of 170 as positive (sensitivity 96.5%) and 525 of 608 eyes as negative (specificity 86%) for mtmDR.

Conclusions

The AI system had a higher sensitivity for detecting mtmDR than either general ophthalmologists or retina specialists compared with the clinical reference standard. It can potentially serve as a low-cost point-of-care diabetic retinopathy detection tool and help address the diabetic eye screening burden.

SUBMITTER: Lim JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9636573 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Artificial Intelligence Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy: Subgroup Comparison of the EyeArt System with Ophthalmologists' Dilated Examinations.

Lim Jennifer Irene JI Regillo Carl D CD Sadda SriniVas R SR Ipp Eli E Bhaskaranand Malavika M Ramachandra Chaithanya C Solanki Kaushal K

Ophthalmology science 20220930 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare general ophthalmologists, retina specialists, and the EyeArt Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to the clinical reference standard for detecting more than mild diabetic retinopathy (mtmDR).<h4>Design</h4>Prospective, pivotal, multicenter trial conducted from April 2017 to May 2018.<h4>Participants</h4>Participants were aged ≥ 18 years who had diabetes mellitus and underwent dilated ophthalmoscopy. A total of 521 of 893 participants met these criteria and completed t ...[more]

PMID: 36345378

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness in adults worldwide. Early detection and intervention can prevent blindness; however, many patients do not receive their recommended annual diabetic eye examinations, primarily owing to limited access.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) system (the EyeArt Automated DR Detection System, version 2.1.0) in detecting both more-than-mild diabetic retinopathy (mtmDR) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (vtDR).Design, setting, and participantsA prospective multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic study was preregistered (NCT03112005) and conducted from April 17, 2017, to May 30, 2018. A total of 942 individuals aged 18 years or older who had diabetes gave consent to participate at 15 primary care and eye care facilities. Data analysis was performed from February 14 to July 10, 2019.InterventionsRetinal imaging for the autonomous AI system and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) reference standard determination.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome measures included the sensitivity and specificity of the AI system in identifying participants' eyes with mtmDR and/or vtDR by 2-field undilated fundus photography vs a rigorous clinical reference standard comprising reading center grading of 4 wide-field dilated images using the ETDRS severity scale. Secondary outcome measures included the evaluation of imageability, dilated-if-needed analysis, enrichment correction analysis, worst-case imputation, and safety outcomes.ResultsOf 942 consenting individuals, 893 patients (1786 eyes) met the inclusion criteria and completed the study protocol. The population included 449 men (50.3%). Mean (SD) participant age was 53.9 (15.2) years (median, 56; range, 18-88 years), 655 were White (73.3%), and 206 had type 1 diabetes (23.1%). Sensitivity and specificity of the AI system were high in detecting mtmDR (sensitivity: 95.5%; 95% CI, 92.4%-98.5% and specificity: 85.0%; 95% CI, 82.6%-87.4%) and vtDR (sensitivity: 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.1%-100% and specificity: 89.0%; 95% CI, 87.0%-91.1%) without dilation. Imageability was high without dilation, with the AI system able to grade 87.4% (95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%) of the eyes with reading center grades. When eyes with ungradable results were dilated per the protocol, the imageability improved to 97.4% (95% CI, 96.4%-98.5%), with the sensitivity and specificity being similar. After correcting for enrichment, the mtmDR specificity increased to 87.8% (95% CI, 86.3%-89.5%) and the sensitivity remained similar; for vtDR, both sensitivity (97.0%; 95% CI, 91.2%-100%) and specificity (90.1%; 95% CI, 89.4%-91.5%) improved.Conclusions and relevanceThis prospective multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic study noted safety and accuracy with use of the EyeArt Automated DR Detection System in detecting both mtmDR and, for the first time, vtDR, without physician assistance. These findings suggest that improved access to accurate, reliable diabetic eye examinations may increase adherence to recommended annual screenings and allow for accelerated referral of patients identified as having vtDR.

Project description:IntroductionDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of preventable blindness in Saudi Arabia. With a prevalence of up to 40% of patients with diabetes, DR constitutes a significant public health burden on the country. Saudi Arabia has not yet established a national screening program for DR. Mounting evidence shows that Artificial intelligence (AI)-based DR screening programs are slowly becoming superior to traditional screening, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating research into this topic as well as changing the outlook of the public toward it. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the perception and acceptance of AI in DR screening among eye care professionals in Saudi Arabia.MethodsA cross-sectional study using a self-administered online-based questionnaire was distributed by email through the registry of the Saudi Commission For Health Specialties (SCFHS). 309 ophthalmologists and physicians involved in diabetic eye care in Saudi Arabia participated in the study. Data analysis was done by SPSS, and a value of p < 0.05 was considered significant for statistical purposes.Results54% of participants rated their level of AI knowledge as above average and 63% believed that AI and telemedicine are interchangeable. 66% believed that AI would decrease the workforce of physicians. 79% expected clinical efficiency to increase with AI. Around 50% of participants expected AI to be implemented in the next 5 years.DiscussionMost participants reported good knowledge about AI. Physicians with more clinical experience and those who used e-health apps in clinical practice regarded their AI knowledge as higher than their peers. Perceived knowledge was strongly related to acceptance of the benefits of AI-based DR screening. In general, there was a positive attitude toward AI-based DR screening. However, concerns related to the labor market and data confidentiality were evident. There should be further education and awareness about the topic.

Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy: Subgroup Comparison of the EyeArt System with Ophthalmologists' Dilated Examinations.

Objective

Design

Participants

Testing

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Artificial Intelligence Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy: Subgroup Comparison of the EyeArt System with Ophthalmologists' Dilated Examinations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets