The assessment of fundus image quality labeling reliability among graders with different backgrounds.

purposeFor the training of machine learning (ML) algorithms, correctly labeled ground truth data are inevitable. In this pilot study, we assessed the performance of graders with different backgrounds in the labeling of retinal fundus image quality.

methodsColor fundus photographs were labeled using a Python-based tool using four image categories: excellent (E), good (G), adequate (A) and insufficient for grading (I). We enrolled 8 subjects (4 with and 4 without medical background, groups M and NM, respectively) to whom a tutorial was presented on image quality requirements. We randomly selected 200 images from a pool of 18,145 expert-labeled images (50/E, 50/G, 50/A, 50/I). The performance of the grading was timed and the agreement was assessed. An additional grading round was performed with 14 labels for a more objective analysis.

resultsThe median time (interquartile range) for the labeling task with 4 categories was 987.8 sec (418.6) for all graders and 872.9 sec (621.0) vs. 1019.8 sec (479.5) in the M vs. NM groups, respectively. Cohen's weighted kappa showed moderate agreement (0.564) when using four categories that increased to substantial (0.637) when using only three by merging the E and G groups. By the use of 14 labels, the weighted kappa values were 0.594 and 0.667 when assigning four or three categories, respectively.

conclusionImage grading with a Python-based tool seems to be a simple yet possibly efficient solution for the labeling of fundus images according to image quality that does not necessarily require medical background. Such grading can be subject to variability but could still effectively serve the robust identification of images with insufficient quality. This emphasizes the opportunity for the democratization of ML-applications among persons with both medical and non-medical background. However, simplicity of the grading system is key to successful categorization.