Cargando…

Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy and robustness of the AI algorithm for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR), referable macular diseases (RMD), and glaucoma suspect (GCS) from fundus images in community and in-hospital screening scenarios. METHODS: We collected two color fundus image datase...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Ruoan, Cheng, Gangwei, Zhang, Bilei, Yang, Jingyuan, Yuan, Mingzhen, Yang, Dalu, Wu, Junde, Liu, Junwei, Zhao, Chan, Chen, Youxin, Xu, Yanwu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35937211
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.944967
_version_ 1784763084510855168
author Han, Ruoan
Cheng, Gangwei
Zhang, Bilei
Yang, Jingyuan
Yuan, Mingzhen
Yang, Dalu
Wu, Junde
Liu, Junwei
Zhao, Chan
Chen, Youxin
Xu, Yanwu
author_facet Han, Ruoan
Cheng, Gangwei
Zhang, Bilei
Yang, Jingyuan
Yuan, Mingzhen
Yang, Dalu
Wu, Junde
Liu, Junwei
Zhao, Chan
Chen, Youxin
Xu, Yanwu
author_sort Han, Ruoan
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy and robustness of the AI algorithm for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR), referable macular diseases (RMD), and glaucoma suspect (GCS) from fundus images in community and in-hospital screening scenarios. METHODS: We collected two color fundus image datasets, namely, PUMCH (556 images, 166 subjects, and four camera models) and NSDE (534 images, 134 subjects, and two camera models). The AI algorithm generates the screening report after taking fundus images. The images were labeled as RDR, RMD, GCS, or none of the three by 3 licensed ophthalmologists. The resulting labels were treated as “ground truth” and then were used to compare against the AI screening reports to validate the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the AI algorithm. RESULTS: On the PUMCH dataset, regarding the prediction of RDR, the AI algorithm achieved overall results of 0.950 ± 0.058, 0.963 ± 0.024, and 0.954 ± 0.049 on sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, respectively. For RMD, the overall results are 0.919 ± 0.073, 0.929 ± 0.039, and 0.974 ± 0.009. For GCS, the overall results are 0.950 ± 0.059, 0.946 ± 0.016, and 0.976 ± 0.025. CONCLUSION: The AI algorithm can work robustly with various fundus camera models and achieve high accuracies for detecting RDR, RMD, and GCS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9354491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93544912022-08-06 Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios Han, Ruoan Cheng, Gangwei Zhang, Bilei Yang, Jingyuan Yuan, Mingzhen Yang, Dalu Wu, Junde Liu, Junwei Zhao, Chan Chen, Youxin Xu, Yanwu Front Public Health Public Health PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy and robustness of the AI algorithm for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR), referable macular diseases (RMD), and glaucoma suspect (GCS) from fundus images in community and in-hospital screening scenarios. METHODS: We collected two color fundus image datasets, namely, PUMCH (556 images, 166 subjects, and four camera models) and NSDE (534 images, 134 subjects, and two camera models). The AI algorithm generates the screening report after taking fundus images. The images were labeled as RDR, RMD, GCS, or none of the three by 3 licensed ophthalmologists. The resulting labels were treated as “ground truth” and then were used to compare against the AI screening reports to validate the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the AI algorithm. RESULTS: On the PUMCH dataset, regarding the prediction of RDR, the AI algorithm achieved overall results of 0.950 ± 0.058, 0.963 ± 0.024, and 0.954 ± 0.049 on sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, respectively. For RMD, the overall results are 0.919 ± 0.073, 0.929 ± 0.039, and 0.974 ± 0.009. For GCS, the overall results are 0.950 ± 0.059, 0.946 ± 0.016, and 0.976 ± 0.025. CONCLUSION: The AI algorithm can work robustly with various fundus camera models and achieve high accuracies for detecting RDR, RMD, and GCS. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9354491/ /pubmed/35937211 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.944967 Text en Copyright © 2022 Han, Cheng, Zhang, Yang, Yuan, Yang, Wu, Liu, Zhao, Chen and Xu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Han, Ruoan
Cheng, Gangwei
Zhang, Bilei
Yang, Jingyuan
Yuan, Mingzhen
Yang, Dalu
Wu, Junde
Liu, Junwei
Zhao, Chan
Chen, Youxin
Xu, Yanwu
Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
title Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
title_full Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
title_fullStr Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
title_full_unstemmed Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
title_short Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
title_sort validating automated eye disease screening ai algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35937211
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.944967
work_keys_str_mv AT hanruoan validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT chenggangwei validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT zhangbilei validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT yangjingyuan validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT yuanmingzhen validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT yangdalu validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT wujunde validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT liujunwei validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT zhaochan validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT chenyouxin validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios
AT xuyanwu validatingautomatedeyediseasescreeningaialgorithmincommunityandinhospitalscenarios