Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36685715›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science2023

SynthEye: Investigating the Impact of Synthetic Data on Artificial Intelligence-assisted Gene Diagnosis of Inherited Retinal Disease.

Yoga Advaith Veturi, William Woof, Teddy Lazebnik, Ismail Moghul, Peter Woodward-Court, Siegfried K Wagner, Thales Antonio Cabral de Guimarães, Malena Daich Varela, Bart Liefers, Praveen J Patel and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science, 2023. 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. Ethical considerations in generative artificial intelligence for synthetic data generation in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Artificial intelligence applications in inherited retinal dystrophies.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Yoga Advaith VeturiUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
William WoofUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Teddy LazebnikUniversity College London Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Ismail MoghulMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
Peter Woodward-CourtUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Siegfried K WagnerUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Thales Antonio Cabral de GuimarãesUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Malena Daich VarelaUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Bart LiefersMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
Praveen J PatelMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
Stephan BeckUniversity College London Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew R WebsterUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Omar MahrooUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Pearse A KeaneUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Michel MichaelidesUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Konstantinos BalaskasUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Nikolas PontikosUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T000953/1Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Rare disease diagnosis is challenging in medical image-based artificial intelligence due to a natural class imbalance in datasets, leading to biased prediction models. Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a research domain that particularly faces this issue. This study investigates the applicability of synthetic data in improving artificial intelligence-enabled diagnosis of IRDs using generative adversarial networks (GANs). Design: Diagnostic study of gene-labeled fundus autofluorescence (FAF) IRD images using deep learning. Participants: Moorfields Eye Hospital (MEH) dataset of 15 692 FAF images obtained from 1800 patients with confirmed genetic diagnosis of 1 of 36 IRD genes. Methods: A StyleGAN2 model is trained on the IRD dataset to generate 512 × 512 resolution images. Convolutional neural networks are trained for classification using different synthetically augmented datasets, including real IRD images plus 1800 and 3600 synthetic images, and a fully rebalanced dataset. We also perform an experiment with only synthetic data. All models are compared against a baseline convolutional neural network trained only on real data. Main Outcome Measures: We evaluated synthetic data quality using a Visual Turing Test conducted with 4 ophthalmologists from MEH. Synthetic and real images were compared using feature space visualization, similarity analysis to detect memorized images, and Blind/Referenceless Image Spatial Quality Evaluator (BRISQUE) score for no-reference-based quality evaluation. Convolutional neural network diagnostic performance was determined on a held-out test set using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and Cohen's Kappa (κ). Results: An average true recognition rate of 63% and fake recognition rate of 47% was obtained from the Visual Turing Test. Thus, a considerable proportion of the synthetic images were classified as real by clinical experts. Similarity analysis showed that the synthetic images were not copies of the real images, indicating that copied real images, meaning the GAN was able to generalize. However, BRISQUE score analysis indicated that synthetic images were of significantly lower quality overall than real images ( Conclusions: Synthetic generation of realistic IRD FAF images is feasible. Synthetic data augmentation does not deliver improvements in classification performance. However, synthetic data alone deliver a similar performance as real data, and hence may be useful as a proxy to real data.

Indexed as

AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curveBRISQUE, Blind/Referenceless Image Spatial Quality EvaluatorClass imbalanceClinical Decision-Support ModelDeep LearningDL, deep learningFAF, fundas autofluorescenceFRR, Fake Recognition RateGAN, generative adversarial networkGenerative Adversarial NetworksInherited Retinal DiseasesIRD, inherited retinal diseaseMEH, Moorfields Eye HospitalR, baseline modelRB, rebalanced modelS, synthetic data trained modelSynthetic dataTRR, True Recognition RateUMAP, Universal Manifold Approximation and Projection

Identifiers

PMID36685715
PMCPMC9852957

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.