Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34767624›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021

In-Person Verification of Deep Learning Algorithm for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Using Different Techniques Across Fundus Image Devices.

Nida Wongchaisuwat, Adisak Trinavarat, Nuttawut Rodanant, Somanus Thoongsuwan, Nopasak Phasukkijwatana, Supalert Prakhunhungsit, Lukana Preechasuk, Papis Wongchaisuwat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nida WongchaisuwatDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Adisak TrinavaratDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nuttawut RodanantDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Somanus ThoongsuwanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nopasak PhasukkijwatanaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Supalert PrakhunhungsitDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lukana PreechasukSiriraj Diabetes Center of Excellence, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Papis WongchaisuwatDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mahidol University · THSiriraj Hospital · THKasetsart University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of an automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening model to detect referable cases at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Methods: A retrospective review of two sets of fundus photographs (Eidon and Nidek) was undertaken. The images were classified by DR staging prior to the development of a DR screening model. In a prospective cross-sectional enrollment of patients with diabetes, automated detection of referable DR was compared with the results of the gold standard, a dilated fundus examination. Results: The study analyzed 2533 Nidek fundus images and 1989 Eidon images. The sensitivities calculated for the Nidek and Eidon images were 0.93 and 0.88 and the specificities were 0.91 and 0.85, respectively. In a clinical verification phase using 982 Nidek and 674 Eidon photographs, the calculated sensitivities and specificities were 0.86 and 0.92 for Nidek along with 0.92 and 0.84 for Eidon, respectively. The 60°-field images from the Eidon yielded a more desirable performance in differentiating referable DR than did the corresponding images from the Nidek. Conclusions: A conventional fundus examination requires intense healthcare resources. It is time consuming and possibly leads to unavoidable human errors. The deep learning algorithm for the detection of referable DR exhibited a favorable performance and is a promising alternative for DR screening. However, variations in the color and pixels of photographs can cause differences in sensitivity and specificity. The image angle and poor quality of fundus photographs were the main limitations of the automated method. Translational Relevance: The deep learning algorithm, developed from basic research of image processing, was applied to detect referable DR in a real-word clinical care setting.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyAlgorithmsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesThailand

Identifiers

PMID34767624
PMCPMC8590162
OpenAlexW3214641164

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.