ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Automation of Macular Degeneration Classification in the AREDS Dataset, Using a Novel Neural Network Design.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for diagnosing exudative age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Development and validation of a deep-learning model to predict 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk from retinal images using the UK Biobank and EyePACS 10K datasets.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To create an ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), capable of detecting and stratifying the risk of progressive age-related macular degeneration (AMD) from retinal photographs. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Three individual CNNs are trained to accurately detect 1) advanced AMD, 2) drusen size and 3) the presence or otherwise of pigmentary abnormalities, from macular centered retinal images were developed. The CNNs were then arranged in a "cascading" architecture to calculate the Age-related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Simplified 5-level risk Severity score (Risk Score 0 - Risk Score 4), for test images. The process was repeated creating a simplified binary "low risk" (Scores 0-2) and "high risk" (Risk Score 3-4) classification. Participants: There were a total of 188,006 images, of which 118,254 images were deemed gradable, representing 4591 patients, from the AREDS1 dataset. The gradable images were split into 50%/25%/25% ratios for training, validation and test purposes. Main Outcome Measures: The ability of the ensemble of CNNs using retinal images to predict an individual's risk of experiencing progression of their AMD based on the AREDS 5-step Simplified Severity Scale. Results: When assessed against the 5-step Simplified Severity Scale, the results generated by the ensemble of CNN's achieved an accuracy of 80.43% (quadratic kappa 0.870). When assessed against a simplified binary (Low Risk/High Risk) classification, an accuracy of 98.08%, sensitivity of ≥85% and specificity of ≥99% was achieved. Conclusion: We have created an ensemble of neural networks, trained on the AREDS 1 dataset, that is able to accurately calculate an individual's score on the AREDS 5-step Simplified Severity Scale for AMD. If the results presented were replicated, then this ensemble of CNNs could be used as a screening tool that has the potential to significantly improve health outcomes by identifying asymptomatic individuals who would benefit from AREDS2 macular supplements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.