Literature DB >> 33381600

Longitudinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy in a Nationwide Screening Program: Comparing Deep Learning and Human Graders.

Jirawut Limwattanayingyong1, Variya Nganthavee1, Kasem Seresirikachorn1, Tassapol Singalavanija2, Ngamphol Soonthornworasiri3, Varis Ruamviboonsuk4, Chetan Rao5, Rajiv Raman5, Andrzej Grzybowski6,7, Mike Schaekermann8, Lily H Peng8, Dale R Webster8, Christopher Semturs8, Jonathan Krause8, Rory Sayres8, Fred Hersch8, Richa Tiwari9, Yun Liu8, Paisan Ruamviboonsuk1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening via deep learning (DL) and trained human graders (HG) in a longitudinal cohort, as case spectrum shifts based on treatment referral and new-onset DR.
METHODS: We randomly selected patients with diabetes screened twice, two years apart within a nationwide screening program. The reference standard was established via adjudication by retina specialists. Each patient's color fundus photographs were graded, and a patient was considered as having sight-threatening DR (STDR) if the worse eye had severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or diabetic macular edema. We compared DR screening via two modalities: DL and HG. For each modality, we simulated treatment referral by excluding patients with detected STDR from the second screening using that modality.
RESULTS: There were 5,738 patients (12.3% STDR) in the first screening. DL and HG captured different numbers of STDR cases, and after simulated referral and excluding ungradable cases, 4,148 and 4,263 patients remained in the second screening, respectively. The STDR prevalence at the second screening was 5.1% and 6.8% for DL- and HG-based screening, respectively. Along with the prevalence decrease, the sensitivity for both modalities decreased from the first to the second screening (DL: from 95% to 90%, p = 0.008; HG: from 74% to 57%, p < 0.001). At both the first and second screenings, the rate of false negatives for the DL was a fifth that of HG (0.5-0.6% vs. 2.9-3.2%).
CONCLUSION: On 2-year longitudinal follow-up of a DR screening cohort, STDR prevalence decreased for both DL- and HG-based screening. Follow-up screenings in longitudinal DR screening can be more difficult and induce lower sensitivity for both DL and HG, though the false negative rate was substantially lower for DL. Our data may be useful for health-economics analyses of longitudinal screening settings.
Copyright © 2020 Jirawut Limwattanayingyong et al.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33381600      PMCID: PMC7758133          DOI: 10.1155/2020/8839376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Res            Impact factor:   4.011


  29 in total

Review 1.  Single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy screening: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Authors:  George A Williams; Ingrid U Scott; Julia A Haller; Albert M Maguire; Dennis Marcus; H Richard McDonald
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  Automatic detection of diabetic retinopathy using an artificial neural network: a screening tool.

Authors:  G G Gardner; D Keating; T H Williamson; A T Elliott
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040.

Authors:  K Ogurtsova; J D da Rocha Fernandes; Y Huang; U Linnenkamp; L Guariguata; N H Cho; D Cavan; J E Shaw; L E Makaroff
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 5.602

4.  Developing a screening program to detect sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in South India.

Authors:  Perumalsamy Namperumalsamy; Praveen K Nirmalan; Kim Ramasamy
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 5.  Guidelines on Diabetic Eye Care: The International Council of Ophthalmology Recommendations for Screening, Follow-up, Referral, and Treatment Based on Resource Settings.

Authors:  Tien Y Wong; Jennifer Sun; Ryo Kawasaki; Paisan Ruamviboonsuk; Neeru Gupta; Van Charles Lansingh; Mauricio Maia; Wanjiku Mathenge; Sunil Moreker; Mahi M K Muqit; Serge Resnikoff; Juan Verdaguer; Peiquan Zhao; Frederick Ferris; Lloyd P Aiello; Hugh R Taylor
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Prevalence of retinopathy and proteinuria in type 1 diabetics in Iceland.

Authors:  R Danielsen; F Jónasson; T Helgason
Journal:  Acta Med Scand       Date:  1982

7.  Adopting 3-year screening intervals for sight-threatening retinal vascular lesions in type 2 diabetic subjects without retinopathy.

Authors:  Elisabet Agardh; Poya Tababat-Khani
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 8.  Global prevalence and major risk factors of diabetic retinopathy.

Authors:  Joanne W Y Yau; Sophie L Rogers; Ryo Kawasaki; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Jonathan W Kowalski; Toke Bek; Shih-Jen Chen; Jacqueline M Dekker; Astrid Fletcher; Jakob Grauslund; Steven Haffner; Richard F Hamman; M Kamran Ikram; Takamasa Kayama; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Sannapaneni Krishnaiah; Korapat Mayurasakorn; Joseph P O'Hare; Trevor J Orchard; Massimo Porta; Mohan Rema; Monique S Roy; Tarun Sharma; Jonathan Shaw; Hugh Taylor; James M Tielsch; Rohit Varma; Jie Jin Wang; Ningli Wang; Sheila West; Liang Xu; Miho Yasuda; Xinzhi Zhang; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Individualised risk assessment for diabetic retinopathy and optimisation of screening intervals: a scientific approach to reducing healthcare costs.

Authors:  S H Lund; T Aspelund; P Kirby; G Russell; S Einarsson; O Palsson; E Stefánsson
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Deep learning versus human graders for classifying diabetic retinopathy severity in a nationwide screening program.

Authors:  Paisan Raumviboonsuk; Jonathan Krause; Peranut Chotcomwongse; Rory Sayres; Lily Peng; Dale R Webster; Rajiv Raman; Kasumi Widner; Bilson J L Campana; Sonia Phene; Kornwipa Hemarat; Mongkol Tadarati; Sukhum Silpa-Archa; Jirawut Limwattanayingyong; Chetan Rao; Oscar Kuruvilla; Jesse Jung; Jeffrey Tan; Surapong Orprayoon; Chawawat Kangwanwongpaisan; Ramase Sukumalpaiboon; Chainarong Luengchaichawang; Jitumporn Fuangkaew; Pipat Kongsap; Lamyong Chualinpha; Sarawuth Saree; Srirut Kawinpanitan; Korntip Mitvongsa; Siriporn Lawanasakol; Chaiyasit Thepchatri; Lalita Wongpichedchai; Greg S Corrado
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-04-10
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence at the national eye institute.

Authors:  Noha A Sherif; Emily Y Chew; Michael F Chiang; Michelle Hribar; James Gao; Kerry E Goetz
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 4.299

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.