Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40182983›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Code-Free Deep Learning Glaucoma Detection on Color Fundus Images.

Daniel Milad, Fares Antaki, David Mikhail, Andrew Farah, Jonathan El-Khoury, Samir Touma, Georges M Durr, Taylor Nayman, Clément Playout, Pearse A Keane and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Daniel MiladDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Fares AntakiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
David MikhailTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrew FarahDepartment of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jonathan El-KhouryDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Samir ToumaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Georges M DurrDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Taylor NaymanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Clément PlayoutDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Pearse A KeaneInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Renaud DuvalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Code-free deep learning (CFDL) allows clinicians with no coding experience to build their own artificial intelligence models. This study assesses the performance of CFDL in glaucoma detection from fundus images in comparison to expert-designed models. Design: Deep learning model development, testing, and validation. Subjects: A total of 101 442 labeled fundus images from the Rotterdam EyePACS Artificial Intelligence for Robust Glaucoma Screening (AIROGS) dataset were included. Methods: Ophthalmology trainees without coding experience designed a CFDL binary model using the Rotterdam EyePACS AIROGS dataset of fundus images (101 442 labeled images) to differentiate glaucoma from normal optic nerves. We compared our results with bespoke models from the literature. We then proceeded to externally validate our model using 2 datasets, the Retinal Fundus Glaucoma Challenge (REFUGE) and the Glaucoma grading from Multi-Modality imAges (GAMMA) at 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 confidence thresholds. Main Outcome Measures: Area under the precision-recall curve (AuPRC), sensitivity at 95% specificity (SE@95SP), accuracy, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: The CFDL model showed high performance metrics that were comparable to the bespoke deep learning models. Our single-label classification model had an AuPRC of 0.988, an SE@95SP of 95%, and an accuracy of 91% (compared with 85% SE@95SP for the top bespoke models). Using the REFUGE dataset for external validation, our model had an SE@95SP, AUC, PPV, and accuracy of 83%, 0.960%, 73% to 94%, and 95% to 98%, respectively, at the 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 confidence threshold cutoffs. Using the GAMMA dataset for external validation at the same confidence threshold cutoffs, our model had an SE@95SP, AUC, PPV, and accuracy of 98%, 0.994%, 94% to 96%, and 94% to 97%, respectively. Conclusion: The capacity of CFDL models to perform glaucoma screening using fundus images presents a compelling proof of concept, empowering clinicians to explore innovative model designs for broad glaucoma screening in the near future. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningGlaucomaPublic health

Identifiers

PMID40182983
PMCPMC11964632

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.