Adnan Tufail1, Caroline Rudisill2, Catherine Egan3, Venediktos V Kapetanakis4, Sebastian Salas-Vega2, Christopher G Owen4, Aaron Lee5, Vern Louw3, John Anderson6, Gerald Liew3, Louis Bolter6, Sowmya Srinivas7, Muneeswar Nittala7, SriniVas Sadda7, Paul Taylor8, Alicja R Rudnicka4. 1. Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Adnan.tufail@moorfields.nhs.uk. 2. Department of Social Policy, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom. 3. Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 4. Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, United Kingdom. 5. Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom; University of Washington, Department of Ophthalmology, Seattle, Washington. 6. Homerton University Hospital, Homerton Row, London, United Kingdom. 7. Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California. 8. Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With the increasing prevalence of diabetes, annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) by expert human grading of retinal images is challenging. Automated DR image assessment systems (ARIAS) may provide clinically effective and cost-effective detection of retinopathy. We aimed to determine whether ARIAS can be safely introduced into DR screening pathways to replace human graders. DESIGN: Observational measurement comparison study of human graders following a national screening program for DR versus ARIAS. PARTICIPANTS: Retinal images from 20 258 consecutive patients attending routine annual diabetic eye screening between June 1, 2012, and November 4, 2013. METHODS: Retinal images were manually graded following a standard national protocol for DR screening and were processed by 3 ARIAS: iGradingM, Retmarker, and EyeArt. Discrepancies between manual grades and ARIAS results were sent to a reading center for arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, false-positive rate) and diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence intervals of screening-performance measures) were determined. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome. RESULTS: Sensitivity point estimates (95% confidence intervals) of the ARIAS were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (94.2%-95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (92.9%-94.6%) for referable retinopathy (human graded as either ungradable, maculopathy, preproliferative, or proliferative), 99.6% (97.0%-99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; Retmarker 73.0% (72.0 %-74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (83.6%-86.2%) for referable retinopathy, 97.9% (94.9%-99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either having disease or being ungradable. EyeArt and Retmarker saved costs compared with manual grading both as a replacement for initial human grading and as a filter prior to primary human grading, although the latter approach was less cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt systems achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy when compared with that of human graders and had sufficient specificity to make them cost-effective alternatives to manual grading alone. ARIAS have the potential to reduce costs in developed-world health care economies and to aid delivery of DR screening in developing or remote health care settings.
OBJECTIVE: With the increasing prevalence of diabetes, annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) by expert human grading of retinal images is challenging. Automated DR image assessment systems (ARIAS) may provide clinically effective and cost-effective detection of retinopathy. We aimed to determine whether ARIAS can be safely introduced into DR screening pathways to replace human graders. DESIGN: Observational measurement comparison study of human graders following a national screening program for DR versus ARIAS. PARTICIPANTS: Retinal images from 20 258 consecutive patients attending routine annual diabetic eye screening between June 1, 2012, and November 4, 2013. METHODS: Retinal images were manually graded following a standard national protocol for DR screening and were processed by 3 ARIAS: iGradingM, Retmarker, and EyeArt. Discrepancies between manual grades and ARIAS results were sent to a reading center for arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, false-positive rate) and diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence intervals of screening-performance measures) were determined. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome. RESULTS: Sensitivity point estimates (95% confidence intervals) of the ARIAS were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (94.2%-95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (92.9%-94.6%) for referable retinopathy (human graded as either ungradable, maculopathy, preproliferative, or proliferative), 99.6% (97.0%-99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; Retmarker 73.0% (72.0 %-74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (83.6%-86.2%) for referable retinopathy, 97.9% (94.9%-99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either having disease or being ungradable. EyeArt and Retmarker saved costs compared with manual grading both as a replacement for initial human grading and as a filter prior to primary human grading, although the latter approach was less cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt systems achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy when compared with that of human graders and had sufficient specificity to make them cost-effective alternatives to manual grading alone. ARIAS have the potential to reduce costs in developed-world health care economies and to aid delivery of DR screening in developing or remote health care settings.
Authors: Daniel Shu Wei Ting; Carol Yim-Lui Cheung; Gilbert Lim; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Nguyen D Quang; Alfred Gan; Haslina Hamzah; Renata Garcia-Franco; Ian Yew San Yeo; Shu Yen Lee; Edmund Yick Mun Wong; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Mani Baskaran; Farah Ibrahim; Ngiap Chuan Tan; Eric A Finkelstein; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Ian Y Wong; Neil M Bressler; Sobha Sivaprasad; Rohit Varma; Jost B Jonas; Ming Guang He; Ching-Yu Cheng; Gemmy Chui Ming Cheung; Tin Aung; Wynne Hsu; Mong Li Lee; Tien Yin Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Spencer D Fuller; Jenny Hu; James C Liu; Ella Gibson; Martin Gregory; Jessica Kuo; Rithwick Rajagopal Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-10-30
Authors: Connie Martin Sears; Muneeswar G Nittala; Chaitra Jayadev; Michael Verhoek; Alan Fleming; Jano van Hemert; Irena Tsui; SriniVas R Sadda Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Ru-Ik Chee; Dana Darwish; Alvaro Fernandez-Vega; Samir Patel; Karyn Jonas; Susan Ostmo; J Peter Campbell; Michael F Chiang; Rv Paul Chan Journal: Curr Ophthalmol Rep Date: 2018-01-29