Ryo Asaoka1, Masaki Tanito2, Naoto Shibata3, Keita Mitsuhashi3, Kenichi Nakahara3, Yuri Fujino4, Masato Matsuura4, Hiroshi Murata5, Kana Tokumo6, Yoshiaki Kiuchi6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: rasaoka-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Shimane, Japan. 3. Queue Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kitasato University, Sagamihara Kanagawa, Japan. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 6. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate a deep residual learning algorithm to diagnose glaucoma from fundus photography using different fundus cameras at different institutes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A training dataset consisted of 1364 color fundus photographs with glaucomatous indications and 1768 color fundus photographs without glaucomatous features. Two testing datasets consisted of (1) 95 images of 95 glaucomatous eyes and 110 images of 110 normative eyes, and (2) 93 images of 93 glaucomatous eyes and 78 images of 78 normative eyes. METHODS: A deep learning algorithm known as Residual Network (ResNet) was used to diagnose glaucoma using a training dataset. The 2 testing datasets were obtained using different fundus cameras (different manufacturers) across multiple institutes. The size of the training data was artificially increased by adding minor alterations to the original data, known as "image augmentation." Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: When image augmentation was not used, the AROC was 94.8% (90.3-96.8) in the first testing dataset and 99.7% (99.4-100.0) in the second dataset. These AROC values were significantly (P < 0.05) smaller without augmentation (87.7% [82.8-92.6] in the first testing dataset and 94.5% [91.3-97.6] in the second testing dataset). CONCLUSIONS: The previously developed deep residual learning algorithm achieved high diagnostic performance with different fundus cameras across multiple institutes, in particular when image augmentation was used.
PURPOSE: To validate a deep residual learning algorithm to diagnose glaucoma from fundus photography using different fundus cameras at different institutes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A training dataset consisted of 1364 color fundus photographs with glaucomatous indications and 1768 color fundus photographs without glaucomatous features. Two testing datasets consisted of (1) 95 images of 95 glaucomatous eyes and 110 images of 110 normative eyes, and (2) 93 images of 93 glaucomatous eyes and 78 images of 78 normative eyes. METHODS: A deep learning algorithm known as Residual Network (ResNet) was used to diagnose glaucoma using a training dataset. The 2 testing datasets were obtained using different fundus cameras (different manufacturers) across multiple institutes. The size of the training data was artificially increased by adding minor alterations to the original data, known as "image augmentation." Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: When image augmentation was not used, the AROC was 94.8% (90.3-96.8) in the first testing dataset and 99.7% (99.4-100.0) in the second dataset. These AROC values were significantly (P < 0.05) smaller without augmentation (87.7% [82.8-92.6] in the first testing dataset and 94.5% [91.3-97.6] in the second testing dataset). CONCLUSIONS: The previously developed deep residual learning algorithm achieved high diagnostic performance with different fundus cameras across multiple institutes, in particular when image augmentation was used.
Authors: Nahida Akter; John Fletcher; Stuart Perry; Matthew P Simunovic; Nancy Briggs; Maitreyee Roy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Ravi Aggarwal; Viknesh Sounderajah; Guy Martin; Daniel S W Ting; Alan Karthikesalingam; Dominic King; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Mark Christopher; Kenichi Nakahara; Christopher Bowd; James A Proudfoot; Akram Belghith; Michael H Goldbaum; Jasmin Rezapour; Robert N Weinreb; Massimo A Fazio; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Gustavo De Moraes; Hiroshi Murata; Kana Tokumo; Naoto Shibata; Yuri Fujino; Masato Matsuura; Yoshiaki Kiuchi; Masaki Tanito; Ryo Asaoka; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Olivia E O'Leary; Andreas Schoetzau; Ludovic Amruthalingam; Nadine Geber-Hollbach; Kim Plattner; Paul Jenoe; Alexander Schmidt; Christoph Ullmer; Faye M Drawnel; Sascha Fauser; Hendrik P N Scholl; Jakob Passweg; Joerg P Halter; David Goldblum Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Vincent Yuen; Anran Ran; Jian Shi; Kaiser Sham; Dawei Yang; Victor T T Chan; Raymond Chan; Jason C Yam; Clement C Tham; Gareth J McKay; Michael A Williams; Leopold Schmetterer; Ching-Yu Cheng; Vincent Mok; Christopher L Chen; Tien Y Wong; Carol Y Cheung Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.283