Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31957737›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020

Validation of Deep Convolutional Neural Network-based algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy - Artificial intelligence versus clinician for screening.

Payal Shah, Divyansh K Mishra, Mahesh P Shanmugam, Bindiya Doshi, Hariprasad Jayaraj, Rajesh Ramanjulu

Open access · diamondAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Payal ShahDepartment of Vitreoretina and Ocular Oncology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Divyansh K MishraDepartment of Vitreoretina and Ocular Oncology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Mahesh P ShanmugamDepartment of Vitreoretina and Ocular Oncology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Bindiya DoshiDepartment of Vitreoretina and Ocular Oncology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Hariprasad JayarajLebencare Technologies Pte.Ltd, Singapore.
Rajesh RamanjuluDepartment of Vitreoretina and Ocular Oncology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Eye Hospital in Bangalore · INChristie's · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Deep learning is a newer and advanced subfield in artificial intelligence (AI). The aim of our study is to validate a machine-based algorithm developed based on deep convolutional neural networks as a tool for screening to detect referable diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods: An AI algorithm to detect DR was validated at our hospital using an internal dataset consisting of 1,533 macula-centered fundus images collected retrospectively and an external validation set using Methods to Evaluate Segmentation and Indexing Techniques in the field of Retinal Ophthalmology (MESSIDOR) dataset. Images were graded by two retina specialists as any DR, prompt referral (moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) or above or presence of macular edema) and sight-threatening DR/STDR (severe NPDR or above) and compared with AI results. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC) for both internal and external validation sets for any DR detection, prompt referral, and STDR were calculated. Interobserver agreement using kappa value was calculated for both the sets and two out of three agreements for DR grading was considered as ground truth to compare with AI results. Results: In the internal validation set, the overall sensitivity and specificity was 99.7% and 98.5% for Any DR detection and 98.9% and 94.84%for Prompt referral respectively. The AUC was 0.991 and 0.969 for any DR detection and prompt referral respectively. The agreement between two observers was 99.5% and 99.2% for any DR detection and prompt referral with a kappa value of 0.94 and 0.96, respectively. In the external validation set (MESSIDOR 1), the overall sensitivity and specificity was 90.4% and 91.0% for any DR detection and 94.7% and 97.4% for prompt referral, respectively. The AUC was. 907 and. 960 for any DR detection and prompt referral, respectively. The agreement between two observers was 98.5% and 97.8% for any DR detection and prompt referral with a kappa value of 0.971 and 0.980, respectively. Conclusion: With increasing diabetic population and growing demand supply gap in trained resources, AI is the future for early identification of DR and reducing blindness. This can revolutionize telescreening in ophthalmology, especially where people do not have access to specialized health care.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerDiabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningRetrospective StudiesROC CurveDeep convolutional neural networksdiabetic retinopathy screeningmachine learningvalidation of artificial intelligence

Identifiers

PMID31957737
PMCPMC7003578
OpenAlexW3000946371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.