Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36720585›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2024

Ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks is more accurate and reliable than board-certified ophthalmologists at detecting multiple diseases in retinal fundus photographs.

Prashant U Pandey, Brian G Ballios, Panos G Christakis, Alexander J Kaplan, David J Mathew, Stephan Ong Tone, Michael J Wan, Jonathan A Micieli, Jovi C Y Wong

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Prashant U PandeySchool of Biomedical Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9275-590X
Brian G BalliosDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Panos G ChristakisDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alexander J KaplanDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David J MathewDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8488-2060
Stephan Ong ToneDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael J WanDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5110-5142
Jonathan A MicieliDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jovi C Y WongDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada jovi.wong@mail.utoronto.ca.
University of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo develop an algorithm to classify multiple retinal pathologies accurately and reliably from fundus photographs and to validate its performance against human experts.

methodsWe trained a deep convolutional ensemble (DCE), an ensemble of five convolutional neural networks (CNNs), to classify retinal fundus photographs into diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and normal eyes. The CNN architecture was based on the InceptionV3 model, and initial weights were pretrained on the ImageNet dataset. We used 43 055 fundus images from 12 public datasets. Five trained ensembles were then tested on an 'unseen' set of 100 images. Seven board-certified ophthalmologists were asked to classify these test images.

resultsBoard-certified ophthalmologists achieved a mean accuracy of 72.7% over all classes, while the DCE achieved a mean accuracy of 79.2% (p=0.03). The DCE had a statistically significant higher mean F1-score for DR classification compared with the ophthalmologists (76.8% vs 57.5%; p=0.01) and greater but statistically non-significant mean F1-scores for glaucoma (83.9% vs 75.7%; p=0.10), AMD (85.9% vs 85.2%; p=0.69) and normal eyes (73.0% vs 70.5%; p=0.39). The DCE had a greater mean agreement between accuracy and confident of 81.6% vs 70.3% (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: We developed a deep learning model and found that it could more accurately and reliably classify four categories of fundus images compared with board-certified ophthalmologists. This work provides proof-of-principle that an algorithm is capable of accurate and reliable recognition of multiple retinal diseases using only fundus photographs.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiabetic RetinopathyGlaucomaMacular DegenerationOphthalmologistsFundus OculiHumansNeural Networks, ComputerDiagnostic tests/InvestigationImagingRetina

Identifiers

PMID36720585
PMCPMC10894841
OpenAlexW4318699054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.