| Literature DB >> 35254422 |
Xiaoqiang Liu1, Chun Zhao1, Lilong Wang2, Guanzheng Wang2, Bin Lv2, Chuanfeng Lv2, Guotong Xie2,3,4, Fang Wang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a telemedicine platform integrated with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and artificial intelligence (AI) techniques for retinal disease screening and referral.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35254422 PMCID: PMC8914565 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.3.4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Schematic of the OCT-AI–based telemedicine platform. (A) The workflow of our OCT-AI–based telemedicine platform that connects primary care stations and superior hospitals together. It consists of six steps (a–f) to complete retinal disease screening and referral. (B) The locations of the four primary care stations and the TENTH Hospital marked on the map of Jing'an district, Shanghai.
Participant Characteristics
| Characteristic | PengPu | GongHe | DaNing | BaoShan | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant features | |||||
| No. of images | 10,512 | 6352 | 2160 | 1088 | 20,112 |
| No. of eyes (scans) | 1314 | 794 | 270 | 136 | 2514 |
| No. of individuals | 657 | 397 | 135 | 68 | 1257 |
| Age, mean (SD), y | 65.6 (10.5) | 61.8 (13.3) | 63.0 (10.5) | 66.3 (8.4) | 64.2 (11.0) |
| Female No./total (%) | 327 (49.8) | 191 (48.1) | 79 (58.5) | 46 (67.7) | 643 (51.2) |
| Grading distribution | |||||
| No. (%) of urgent individuals | 81 (12.3) | 38 (9.6) | 15 (11.1) | 12 (17.7) | 146 (11.6) |
| No. (%) of routine individuals | 115 (17.5) | 77 (19.4) | 40 (29.6) | 16 (23.5) | 248 (19.7) |
| No. (%) of normal individuals | 461 (70.2) | 282 (71.0) | 80 (59.3) | 40 (58.8) | 863 (68.7) |
Each OCT scan consists of eight-line cross-sectional images with a resolution of 1024 × 640 pixels.
The number of OCT scans is equal to that of eyes, and each OCT scan corresponds to one unique eye.
Figure 2.Results of AI analysis for referral decisions. (A) Statistical metrics of AI referral of retinal diseases in all participants. (B) Proportion of participants with different referral levels divided by AI and ophthalmologists. (C) Confusion matrix with participant numbers that represent the combination of gold-standard referrals and predicted referrals. The number of correct referral decisions is found on the diagonal.
Figure 3.Correct OCT-AI analysis reports of four participants. (A) Routine case in which RPE irregularity including drusen was found in both eyes. (B) Urgent case as macular hole and intraretinal fluid are detected in the left eye. (C) Another urgent case with fibrovascular PED detected in the right eye. (D) A case also predicted as urgent: RPE atrophy is found in both eyes and the right eye is considered an urgent level. Note that among eight OCT images per eye, one image containing typical pathologies or passing through the fovea is selected for display in the report.
Figure 4.Incorrect OCT-AI analysis reports of four participants. (A, B) Two false-positive cases caused by wrongly detecting ERM and intraretinal fluid, respectively. (C) A false-negative case caused by misdetection of choroid curvature abnormality in the right eye. (D) Case graded as routine but misclassified as urgent by the referral decision model.
Incidence of Retinal Pathologies Observed in Study Participants and Corresponding AI Detection Performance
| Urgent | Urgent + Routine | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathology | No. of Individuals | Percent/Total Individuals (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | No. of Individuals | Percent/Total Individuals (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| ERM | 33 | 2.6 | 97.0 | 99.9 | 150 | 11.9 | 98.0 | 99.2 |
| RPE-IID | 6 | 0.5 | 83.3 | 99.8 | 104 | 8.3 | 97.1 | 98.9 |
| RPE atrophy | 18 | 1.4 | 94.4 | 99.8 | 33 | 2.6 | 93.9 | 99.3 |
| IRF | 20 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 25 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 |
| Fibrovascular PED | 15 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 15 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Hyperreflective foci | 7 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 15 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 99.6 |
| Macular hole | 14 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 14 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Retinoschisis | 11 | 0.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 13 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| SRF | 11 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 11 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Double layer sign | 8 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Dome-shaped PED | 8 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| VMT | 5 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 99.8 |
| Othersa | 5 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7 | 0.6 | 85.7 | 99.9 |
IRF, intraretinal fluid; RPE, retinal pigment epithelium; RPE-IID, retinal pigment epithelium irregularity including drusen; SRF, subretinal fluid; VMT, vitreomacular traction.
aOthers: choroid curvature abnormality, diffuse hyperreflective material, and staphyloma.
| Label Class | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (Negative) | 1 (Positive) | ||
| Predicted Class | 0 (Negative) | TN (True Negative) | FN (False Negative) |
| 1 (Positive) | FP (False Positive) | TP (True Positive) | |