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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |