Michael D Abràmoff1,2,3,4,5,6, Theodore Leng7,8, Daniel S W Ting9,10, Kyu Rhee11, Mark B Horton12, Christopher J Brady13, Michael F Chiang14,15. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 2. IDx, Coralville, Iowa. 3. Stephen A. Wynn Institute for Vision Research, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 5. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 6. Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa. 7. Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 8. Spect, Inc., San Francisco, California. 9. Singapore National Eye Center, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore. 10. Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 11. IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 12. Phoenix Indian Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona. 13. Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont. 14. Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 15. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
Background: The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has raised significant ethical, economic, and scientific controversies. Introduction: Because an explicit goal of AI is to perform processes previously reserved for human clinicians and other health care personnel, there is justified concern about the impact on patient safety, efficacy, equity, and liability. Discussion: Systems for computer-assisted and fully automated detection, triage, and diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy (DR) from retinal images show great variation in design, level of autonomy, and intended use. Moreover, the degree to which these systems have been evaluated and validated is heterogeneous. We use the term DR AI system as a general term for any system that interprets retinal images with at least some degree of autonomy from a human grader. We put forth these standardized descriptors to form a means to categorize systems for computer-assisted and fully automated detection, triage, and diagnosis of DR. The components of the categorization system include level of device autonomy, intended use, level of evidence for diagnostic accuracy, and system design. Conclusion: There is currently minimal empirical basis to assert that certain combinations of autonomy, accuracy, or intended use are better or more appropriate than any other. Therefore, at the current stage of development of this document, we have been descriptive rather than prescriptive, and we treat the different categorizations as independent and organized along multiple axes.
Background: The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has raised significant ethical, economic, and scientific controversies. Introduction: Because an explicit goal of AI is to perform processes previously reserved for human clinicians and other health care personnel, there is justified concern about the impact on patient safety, efficacy, equity, and liability. Discussion: Systems for computer-assisted and fully automated detection, triage, and diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy (DR) from retinal images show great variation in design, level of autonomy, and intended use. Moreover, the degree to which these systems have been evaluated and validated is heterogeneous. We use the term DR AI system as a general term for any system that interprets retinal images with at least some degree of autonomy from a human grader. We put forth these standardized descriptors to form a means to categorize systems for computer-assisted and fully automated detection, triage, and diagnosis of DR. The components of the categorization system include level of device autonomy, intended use, level of evidence for diagnostic accuracy, and system design. Conclusion: There is currently minimal empirical basis to assert that certain combinations of autonomy, accuracy, or intended use are better or more appropriate than any other. Therefore, at the current stage of development of this document, we have been descriptive rather than prescriptive, and we treat the different categorizations as independent and organized along multiple axes.
Authors: K G Moons; T Stijnen; B C Michel; H R Büller; G A Van Es; D E Grobbee; J D Habbema Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1997 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Adnan Tufail; Venediktos V Kapetanakis; Sebastian Salas-Vega; Catherine Egan; Caroline Rudisill; Christopher G Owen; Aaron Lee; Vern Louw; John Anderson; Gerald Liew; Louis Bolter; Clare Bailey; SriniVas Sadda; Paul Taylor; Alicja R Rudnicka Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Alan D Fleming; Keith A Goatman; Sam Philip; Graeme J Williams; Gordon J Prescott; Graham S Scotland; Paul McNamee; Graham P Leese; William N Wykes; Peter F Sharp; John A Olson Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-08-05 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Alan D Fleming; Keith A Goatman; Sam Philip; Gordon J Prescott; Peter F Sharp; John A Olson Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Helen K Li; Mark Horton; Sven-Erik Bursell; Jerry Cavallerano; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler; Mathew Tennant; Michael Abramoff; Edward Chaum; Debra Cabrera Debuc; Tom Leonard-Martin; Marc Winchester; Mary G Lawrence; Wendell Bauman; W Kelly Gardner; Lloyd Hildebran; Jay Federman Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Edward Chaum; Thomas P Karnowski; V Priya Govindasamy; Mohamed Abdelrahman; Kenneth W Tobin Journal: Retina Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Delaney M Curran; Brian Y Kim; Natasha Withers; Donald S Shepard; Christopher J Brady Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Michael D Abràmoff; Brad Cunningham; Bakul Patel; Malvina B Eydelman; Theodore Leng; Taiji Sakamoto; Barbara Blodi; S Marlene Grenon; Risa M Wolf; Arjun K Manrai; Justin M Ko; Michael F Chiang; Danton Char Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Soledad Jimenez-Carmona; Pedro Alemany-Marquez; Pablo Alvarez-Ramos; Eduardo Mayoral; Manuel Aguilar-Diosdado Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 4.241