| Literature DB >> 33505774 |
Boonsong Wanichwecharungruang1, Natsuda Kaothanthong2, Warisara Pattanapongpaiboon1, Pantid Chantangphol2, Kasem Seresirikachorn1, Chaniya Srisuwanporn1,3, Nucharee Parivisutt1, Andrzej Grzybowski4,5, Thanaruk Theeramunkong2, Paisan Ruamviboonsuk1.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL) anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) as a plateau iris prediction model. Design: We used a cross-sectional study of the development and validation of the DL system.Entities:
Keywords: Asian; accuracy; anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT); artificial intelligence; deep learning (DL); diagnostic performance; ocular imaging; plateau iris; primary angle-closure glaucoma; sensitivity; specificity; style transfer; ultrasound biomicroscopy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33505774 PMCID: PMC7794268 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.10.1.7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Overview of the proposed method.
Demographic Data from Primary Angle-Closure Disease
| Patient-Wise | Total ( | Training Set ( | Testing Set ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age, y | 62.45 ± 8.50 | 62.29 ± 8.69 | 63.45 ± 7.84 |
| Range | 42-87 | 42-87 | 49-79 |
| Sex: | |||
| Female, | 109 (76.80%) | 88 (74.60%) | 32 (84.20%) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Diagnosis, | |||
| PACS | 52 (29.1%) | 45 (32.4%) | 7 (17.5%) |
| PAC | 33 (18.4%) | 25 (18.0%) | 8 (20.0%) |
| PACG | 94 (52.5%) | 69 (49.6%) | 25 (62.5%) |
| VA, logMAR: | |||
| Mean ± SD | 0.35 ± 0.51 | 0.34 ± 0.49 | 0.37 ± 0.58 |
| Median | 0.20 (0.10, 0.40) | 0.20 (0.10, 0.40) | 0.20 (0.18, 0.38) |
| IOP mm Hg ± SD | 17.0 ± 7.21 | 16.91 ± 7.43 | 17.31 ± 6.42 |
| Range | 8–56 | 8–56 | 10–44 |
| Cup to disc ratio | 0.54 ± 0.20 | 0.53 ± 0.20 | 0.62 ± 0.19 |
| Range | 0.2–0.9 | 0.2–0.9 | 0.3–0.9 |
| Axial length, mm | 22.59 ± 1.03 | 22.58 ± 0.99 | 22.63 ± 1.19 |
| Range | 19.07–27.88 | 19.14–27.88 | 19.07–27.69 |
| Plateau iris | |||
| Inferior quadrant | 58 (32.40%) | 47 (33.8%) | 11 (27.5%) |
| Nasal quadrant | 58 (32.40%) | 45 (32.4%) | 13 (32.5%) |
| Superior quadrant | 69 (38.55%) | 55 (39.6%) | 14 (35.0% |
| Temporal quadrant | 91 (50.84%) | 71 (51.1%) | 20 (50.0%) |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2.A comparison of ROC-AUC of the test set applying the style transfer augmentation for model training and the one without it.
Comparison of Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, and AUC of the Model with Style Transfer for Predicting Plateau Iris in Each Quadrant in the Test Set
| Inferior Quadrant | Nasal Quadrant | Superior Quadrant | Temporal Quadrant | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 90% | 92.31% | 75% | 94.74% | 87.93% |
| Specificity | 100% | 96.30% | 95.83% | 95.24% | 97.06% |
| Positive predictive value | 100% | 92.31% | 92.31% | 94.74% | 94.44% |
| Negative predictive value | 96.77% | 96.30% | 85.19% | 95.24% | 93.40% |
| Accuracy | 97.50% | 95% | 87.50% | 95% | 93.75% |
| AUC (95% CI) | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.96 (0.88–1.00) | 0.88 (0.75–1.00) | 0.95 (0.88–1.00) | 0.95 (0.91–0.99) |
Figure 3.A comparison of ROC-AUC curve of the four quadrants in the test set of the prediction model with style transfer augmentation.