Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34236406›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2021

Validation and Clinical Applicability of Whole-Volume Automated Segmentation of Optical Coherence Tomography in Retinal Disease Using Deep Learning.

Marc Wilson, Reena Chopra, Megan Z Wilson, Charlotte Cooper, Patricia MacWilliams, Yun Liu, Ellery Wulczyn, Daniela Florea, Cían O Hughes, Alan Karthikesalingam and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Marc WilsonGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Reena ChopraGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Megan Z WilsonGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Charlotte CooperGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Patricia MacWilliamsGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Yun LiuGoogle Health, Palo Alto, California.
Ellery WulczynGoogle Health, Palo Alto, California.
Daniela FloreaNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Cían O HughesGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Alan KarthikesalingamGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.
Hagar KhalidNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sandra VermeirschNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Luke NicholsonNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Pearse A KeaneNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Konstantinos BalaskasNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher J KellyGoogle Health, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceQuantitative volumetric measures of retinal disease in optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans are infeasible to perform owing to the time required for manual grading. Expert-level deep learning systems for automatic OCT segmentation have recently been developed. However, the potential clinical applicability of these systems is largely unknown.

objectiveTo evaluate a deep learning model for whole-volume segmentation of 4 clinically important pathological features and assess clinical applicability. DESIGN, SETTING,

participantsThis diagnostic study used OCT data from 173 patients with a total of 15 558 B-scans, treated at Moorfields Eye Hospital. The data set included 2 common OCT devices and 2 macular conditions: wet age-related macular degeneration (107 scans) and diabetic macular edema (66 scans), covering the full range of severity, and from 3 points during treatment. Two expert graders performed pixel-level segmentations of intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, subretinal hyperreflective material, and pigment epithelial detachment, including all B-scans in each OCT volume, taking as long as 50 hours per scan. Quantitative evaluation of whole-volume model segmentations was performed. Qualitative evaluation of clinical applicability by 3 retinal experts was also conducted. Data were collected from June 1, 2012, to January 31, 2017, for set 1 and from January 1 to December 31, 2017, for set 2; graded between November 2018 and January 2020; and analyzed from February 2020 to November 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rating and stack ranking for clinical applicability by retinal specialists, model-grader agreement for voxelwise segmentations, and total volume evaluated using Dice similarity coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and intraclass correlation coefficients.

resultsAmong the 173 patients included in the analysis (92 [53%] women), qualitative assessment found that automated whole-volume segmentation ranked better than or comparable to at least 1 expert grader in 127 scans (73%; 95% CI, 66%-79%). A neutral or positive rating was given to 135 model segmentations (78%; 95% CI, 71%-84%) and 309 expert gradings (2 per scan) (89%; 95% CI, 86%-92%). The model was rated neutrally or positively in 86% to 92% of diabetic macular edema scans and 53% to 87% of age-related macular degeneration scans. Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.33 (95% CI, 0.08-0.96) to 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Dice similarity coefficients ranged from 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29-0.66) to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This deep learning-based segmentation tool provided clinically useful measures of retinal disease that would otherwise be infeasible to obtain. Qualitative evaluation was additionally important to reveal clinical applicability for both care management and research.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiabetic RetinopathyMacular EdemaWet Macular DegenerationFemaleHumansMaleTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID34236406
PMCPMC8444027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.