Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37311940›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

A generalizable deep learning regression model for automated glaucoma screening from fundus images.

Ruben Hemelings, Bart Elen, Alexander K Schuster, Matthew B Blaschko, João Barbosa-Breda, Pekko Hujanen, Annika Junglas, Stefan Nickels, Andrew White, Norbert Pfeiffer and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

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

14 authors.

Ruben HemelingsResearch Group Ophthalmology, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. ruben.hemelings@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3214-4247
Bart ElenFlemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium.
Alexander K SchusterDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Matthew B BlaschkoESAT-PSI, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, 3001, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2640-181X
João Barbosa-BredaResearch Group Ophthalmology, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7816-816X
Pekko HujanenTays Eye Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Annika JunglasDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Stefan NickelsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Andrew WhiteDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6931-5797
Norbert PfeifferDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Paul MitchellDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Patrick De BoeverCentre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5197-8215
Anja TuulonenTays Eye Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Ingeborg StalmansResearch Group Ophthalmology, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A plethora of classification models for the detection of glaucoma from fundus images have been proposed in recent years. Often trained with data from a single glaucoma clinic, they report impressive performance on internal test sets, but tend to struggle in generalizing to external sets. This performance drop can be attributed to data shifts in glaucoma prevalence, fundus camera, and the definition of glaucoma ground truth. In this study, we confirm that a previously described regression network for glaucoma referral (G-RISK) obtains excellent results in a variety of challenging settings. Thirteen different data sources of labeled fundus images were utilized. The data sources include two large population cohorts (Australian Blue Mountains Eye Study, BMES and German Gutenberg Health Study, GHS) and 11 publicly available datasets (AIROGS, ORIGA, REFUGE1, LAG, ODIR, REFUGE2, GAMMA, RIM-ONEr3, RIM-ONE DL, ACRIMA, PAPILA). To minimize data shifts in input data, a standardized image processing strategy was developed to obtain 30° disc-centered images from the original data. A total of 149,455 images were included for model testing. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for BMES and GHS population cohorts were at 0.976 [95% CI: 0.967-0.986] and 0.984 [95% CI: 0.980-0.991] on participant level, respectively. At a fixed specificity of 95%, sensitivities were at 87.3% and 90.3%, respectively, surpassing the minimum criteria of 85% sensitivity recommended by Prevent Blindness America. AUC values on the eleven publicly available data sets ranged from 0.854 to 0.988. These results confirm the excellent generalizability of a glaucoma risk regression model trained with homogeneous data from a single tertiary referral center. Further validation using prospective cohort studies is warranted.

Identifiers

PMID37311940
PMCPMC10264390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.