Andrzej Grzybowski1,2, Piotr Brona3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Warmia and Mazury, Żołnierska 18, 10-561 Olsztyn, Poland. 2. Institute for Research in Ophthalmology, Foundation for Ophthalmology Development, 60-836 Poznan, Poland. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Poznan City Hospital, Szwajcarska 3, 60-285 Poznan, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) is expected to increase. This will put an increasing strain on health care resources. Recently, artificial intelligence-based, autonomous DR screening systems have been developed. A direct comparison between different systems is often difficult and only two such comparisons have been published so far. As different screening solutions are now available commercially, with more in the pipeline, choosing a system is not a simple matter. Based on the images gathered in a local DR screening program we performed a retrospective comparison of IDx-DR and Retinalyze. METHODS: We chose a non-representative sample of all referable DR positive screening subjects (n = 60) and a random selection of DR negative patient images (n = 110). Only subjects with four good quality, 45-degree field of view images, a macula-centered and disc-centered image from both eyes were chosen for comparison. The images were captured by a Topcon NW-400 fundus camera, without mydriasis. The images were previously graded by a single ophthalmologist. For the purpose of this comparison, we assumed two screening strategies for Retinalyze-where either one or two out of the four images needed to be marked positive by the system for an overall positive result at the patient level. RESULTS: Percentage agreement with a single reader in DR positive and DR negative cases respectively was: 93.3%, 95.5% for IDx-DR; 89.7% and 71.8% for Retinalyze strategy 1; 74.1% and 93.6% for Retinalyze under strategy 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were able to analyse the vast majority of images. Both systems were easy to set up and use. There were several limitations to the current pilot study, concerning sample choice and the reference grading that need to be addressed before attempting a more robust future study.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) is expected to increase. This will put an increasing strain on health care resources. Recently, artificial intelligence-based, autonomous DR screening systems have been developed. A direct comparison between different systems is often difficult and only two such comparisons have been published so far. As different screening solutions are now available commercially, with more in the pipeline, choosing a system is not a simple matter. Based on the images gathered in a local DR screening program we performed a retrospective comparison of IDx-DR and Retinalyze. METHODS: We chose a non-representative sample of all referable DR positive screening subjects (n = 60) and a random selection of DR negative patient images (n = 110). Only subjects with four good quality, 45-degree field of view images, a macula-centered and disc-centered image from both eyes were chosen for comparison. The images were captured by a Topcon NW-400 fundus camera, without mydriasis. The images were previously graded by a single ophthalmologist. For the purpose of this comparison, we assumed two screening strategies for Retinalyze-where either one or two out of the four images needed to be marked positive by the system for an overall positive result at the patient level. RESULTS: Percentage agreement with a single reader in DR positive and DR negative cases respectively was: 93.3%, 95.5% for IDx-DR; 89.7% and 71.8% for Retinalyze strategy 1; 74.1% and 93.6% for Retinalyze under strategy 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were able to analyse the vast majority of images. Both systems were easy to set up and use. There were several limitations to the current pilot study, concerning sample choice and the reference grading that need to be addressed before attempting a more robust future study.
Entities:
Keywords:
artificial intelligence; deep learning; diabetic eye disease; diabetic retinopathy; diabetic retinopathy screening; diabetology; machine learning; ophthalmology; public health
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: Michael Larsen; Jannik Godt; Nicolai Larsen; Henrik Lund-Andersen; Anne Katrin Sjølie; Elisabet Agardh; Helle Kalm; Michael Grunkin; David R Owens Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michael David Abràmoff; Yiyue Lou; Ali Erginay; Warren Clarida; Ryan Amelon; James C Folk; Meindert Niemeijer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Aaron Y Lee; Ryan T Yanagihara; Cecilia S Lee; Marian Blazes; Hoon C Jung; Yewlin E Chee; Michael D Gencarella; Harry Gee; April Y Maa; Glenn C Cockerham; Mary Lynch; Edward J Boyko Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 19.112