PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Crowdsourcing involves the use of the collective intelligence of online communities to produce solutions and outcomes for defined objectives. The use of crowdsourcing is growing in many scientific areas. Crowdsourcing in ophthalmology has been used in basic science and clinical research; however, it also shows promise as a method with wide-ranging applications. This review presents current findings on the use of crowdsourcing in ophthalmology and potential applications in the future. RECENT FINDINGS: Crowdsourcing has been used to distinguish normal retinal images from images with diabetic retinopathy; the collective intelligence of the crowd was able to correctly classify 81% of 230 images (19 unique) for US$1.10/eye in 20 min. Crowdsourcing has also been used to distinguish normal optic discs from abnormal ones with reasonable sensitivity (83-88%), but low specificity (35-43%). Another study used crowdsourcing for quick and reliable manual segmentation of optical coherence tomography images. Outside of ophthalmology, crowdsourcing has been used for text and image interpretation, language translation, and data analysis. SUMMARY: Crowdsourcing has the potential for rapid and economical data processing. Among other applications, it could be used in research settings to provide the 'ground-truth' data, and in the clinical settings to relieve the burden of image processing on experts.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Crowdsourcing involves the use of the collective intelligence of online communities to produce solutions and outcomes for defined objectives. The use of crowdsourcing is growing in many scientific areas. Crowdsourcing in ophthalmology has been used in basic science and clinical research; however, it also shows promise as a method with wide-ranging applications. This review presents current findings on the use of crowdsourcing in ophthalmology and potential applications in the future. RECENT FINDINGS: Crowdsourcing has been used to distinguish normal retinal images from images with diabetic retinopathy; the collective intelligence of the crowd was able to correctly classify 81% of 230 images (19 unique) for US$1.10/eye in 20 min. Crowdsourcing has also been used to distinguish normal optic discs from abnormal ones with reasonable sensitivity (83-88%), but low specificity (35-43%). Another study used crowdsourcing for quick and reliable manual segmentation of optical coherence tomography images. Outside of ophthalmology, crowdsourcing has been used for text and image interpretation, language translation, and data analysis. SUMMARY: Crowdsourcing has the potential for rapid and economical data processing. Among other applications, it could be used in research settings to provide the 'ground-truth' data, and in the clinical settings to relieve the burden of image processing on experts.
Authors: Daniel Holst; Timothy M Kowalewski; Lee W White; Timothy C Brand; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen; Mireille Truong; Khara Simpson; Alyssa Tanaka; Roger Smith; Thomas S Lendvay Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Lee W White; Timothy M Kowalewski; Rodney Lee Dockter; Bryan Comstock; Blake Hannaford; Thomas S Lendvay Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Jinseop S Kim; Matthew J Greene; Aleksandar Zlateski; Kisuk Lee; Mark Richardson; Srinivas C Turaga; Michael Purcaro; Matthew Balkam; Amy Robinson; Bardia F Behabadi; Michael Campos; Winfried Denk; H Sebastian Seung Journal: Nature Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Christopher J Brady; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Thomas R Kirchner; Omesh P Gupta; Chirag P Shah Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Danny Mitry; Tunde Peto; Shabina Hayat; Peter Blows; James Morgan; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paul J Foster Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nassr Nama; Margaret Sampson; Nicholas Barrowman; Ryan Sandarage; Kusum Menon; Gail Macartney; Kimmo Murto; Jean-Philippe Vaccani; Sherri Katz; Roger Zemek; Ahmed Nasr; James Dayre McNally Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Himel Mondal; Emil D Parvanov; Rajeev K Singla; Rehab A Rayan; Faisal A Nawaz; Valentin Ritschl; Fabian Eibensteiner; Chandragiri Siva Sai; Merisa Cenanovic; Hari Prasad Devkota; Mojca Hribersek; Ronita De; Elisabeth Klager; Maria Kletecka-Pulker; Sabine Völkl-Kernstock; Garba M Khalid; Ronan Lordan; Mihnea-Alexandru Găman; Bairong Shen; Tanja Stamm; Harald Willschke; Atanas G Atanasov Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-09-16
Authors: Alejandra Ortiz-Ruiz; María Postigo; Sara Gil-Casanova; Daniel Cuadrado; José M Bautista; José Miguel Rubio; Miguel Luengo-Oroz; María Linares Journal: Malar J Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Andrea Tacchella; Silvia Romano; Michela Ferraldeschi; Marco Salvetti; Andrea Zaccaria; Andrea Crisanti; Francesca Grassi Journal: F1000Res Date: 2017-12-22