AIM: To assess the efficacy of automated "disease/no disease" grading for diabetic retinopathy within a systematic screening programme. METHODS: Anonymised images were obtained from consecutive patients attending a regional primary care based diabetic retinopathy screening programme. A training set of 1067 images was used to develop automated grading algorithms. The final software was tested using a separate set of 14 406 images from 6722 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of manual and automated systems operating as "disease/no disease" graders (detecting poor quality images and any diabetic retinopathy) were determined relative to a clinical reference standard. RESULTS: The reference standard classified 8.2% of the patients as having ungradeable images (technical failures) and 62.5% as having no retinopathy. Detection of technical failures or any retinopathy was achieved by manual grading with 86.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval 85.1 to 87.8) and 95.3% specificity (94.6 to 95.9) and by automated grading with 90.5% sensitivity (89.3 to 91.6) and 67.4% specificity (66.0 to 68.8). Manual and automated grading detected 99.1% and 97.9%, respectively, of patients with referable or observable retinopathy/maculopathy. Manual and automated grading detected 95.7% and 99.8%, respectively, of technical failures. CONCLUSION: Automated "disease/no disease" grading of diabetic retinopathy could safely reduce the burden of grading in diabetic retinopathy screening programmes.
AIM: To assess the efficacy of automated "disease/no disease" grading for diabetic retinopathy within a systematic screening programme. METHODS: Anonymised images were obtained from consecutive patients attending a regional primary care based diabetic retinopathy screening programme. A training set of 1067 images was used to develop automated grading algorithms. The final software was tested using a separate set of 14 406 images from 6722 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of manual and automated systems operating as "disease/no disease" graders (detecting poor quality images and any diabetic retinopathy) were determined relative to a clinical reference standard. RESULTS: The reference standard classified 8.2% of the patients as having ungradeable images (technical failures) and 62.5% as having no retinopathy. Detection of technical failures or any retinopathy was achieved by manual grading with 86.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval 85.1 to 87.8) and 95.3% specificity (94.6 to 95.9) and by automated grading with 90.5% sensitivity (89.3 to 91.6) and 67.4% specificity (66.0 to 68.8). Manual and automated grading detected 99.1% and 97.9%, respectively, of patients with referable or observable retinopathy/maculopathy. Manual and automated grading detected 95.7% and 99.8%, respectively, of technical failures. CONCLUSION: Automated "disease/no disease" grading of diabetic retinopathy could safely reduce the burden of grading in diabetic retinopathy screening programmes.
Authors: P H Scanlon; R Malhotra; G Thomas; C Foy; J N Kirkpatrick; N Lewis-Barned; B Harney; S J Aldington Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Michael Larsen; Jannik Godt; Nicolai Larsen; Henrik Lund-Andersen; Anne Katrin Sjølie; Elisabet Agardh; Helle Kalm; Michael Grunkin; David R Owens Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J A Olson; F M Strachan; J H Hipwell; K A Goatman; K C McHardy; J V Forrester; P F Sharp Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: D Marin; M E Gegundez-Arias; B Ponte; F Alvarez; J Garrido; C Ortega; M J Vasallo; J M Bravo Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Emanuele Trucco; Alfredo Ruggeri; Thomas Karnowski; Luca Giancardo; Edward Chaum; Jean Pierre Hubschman; Bashir Al-Diri; Carol Y Cheung; Damon Wong; Michael Abràmoff; Gilbert Lim; Dinesh Kumar; Philippe Burlina; Neil M Bressler; Herbert F Jelinek; Fabrice Meriaudeau; Gwénolé Quellec; Tom Macgillivray; Bal Dhillon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J C Buchan; W Amoaku; B Barnes; A Cassels-Brown; B Y Chang; J Harcourt; D Shickle; A F Spencer; S A Vernon; C MacEwen Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 3.775