Screening Diabetic Retinopathy Using an Automated Retinal Image Analysis System in Independent and Assistive Use Cases in Mexico: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The automated screening of patients at risk of developing diabetic retinopathy represents an opportunity to improve their midterm outcome and lower the public expenditure associated with direct and indirect costs of common sight-threatening complications of diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the performance of an automated deep learning-based system to classify retinal fundus images as referable and nonreferable diabetic retinopathy cases, from international and Mexican patients. In particular, we aimed to evaluate the performance of the automated retina image analysis (ARIA) system under an independent scheme (ie, only ARIA screening) and 2 assistive schemes (ie, hybrid ARIA plus ophthalmologist screening), using a web-based platform for remote image analysis to determine and compare the sensibility and specificity of the 3 schemes. METHODS: A randomized controlled experiment was performed where 17 ophthalmologists were asked to classify a series of retinal fundus images under 3 different conditions. The conditions were to (1) screen the fundus image by themselves (solo); (2) screen the fundus image after exposure to the retina image classification of the ARIA system (ARIA answer); and (3) screen the fundus image after exposure to the classification of the ARIA system, as well as its level of confidence and an attention map highlighting the most important areas of interest in the image according to the ARIA system (ARIA explanation). The ophthalmologists' classification in each condition and the result from the ARIA system were compared against a gold standard generated by consulting and aggregating the opinion of 3 retina specialists for each fundus image. RESULTS: The ARIA system was able to classify referable vs nonreferable cases with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98%, a sensitivity of 95.1%, and a specificity of 91.5% for international patient cases. There was an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98.3%, a sensitivity of 95.2%, and a specificity of 90% for Mexican patient cases. The ARIA system performance was more successful than the average performance of the 17 ophthalmologists enrolled in the study. Additionally, the results suggest that the ARIA system can be useful as an assistive tool, as sensitivity was significantly higher in the experimental condition where ophthalmologists were exposed to the ARIA system's answer prior to their own classification (93.3%), compared with the sensitivity of the condition where participants assessed the images independently (87.3%; P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that both independent and assistive use cases of the ARIA system present, for Latin American countries such as Mexico, a substantial opportunity toward expanding the monitoring capacity for the early detection of diabetes-related blindness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».