Assessment of Automated Identification of Phases in Videos of Cataract Surgery Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques.
Algorithms
Cataract
/ epidemiology
Cataract Extraction
/ instrumentation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Deep Learning
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Machine Learning
Neural Networks, Computer
Observational Studies as Topic
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Video Recording
/ methods
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 04 2019
05 04 2019
Historique:
entrez:
6
4
2019
pubmed:
6
4
2019
medline:
23
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Competence in cataract surgery is a public health necessity, and videos of cataract surgery are routinely available to educators and trainees but currently are of limited use in training. Machine learning and deep learning techniques can yield tools that efficiently segment videos of cataract surgery into constituent phases for subsequent automated skill assessment and feedback. To evaluate machine learning and deep learning algorithms for automated phase classification of manually presegmented phases in videos of cataract surgery. This was a cross-sectional study using a data set of videos from a convenience sample of 100 cataract procedures performed by faculty and trainee surgeons in an ophthalmology residency program from July 2011 to December 2017. Demographic characteristics for surgeons and patients were not captured. Ten standard labels in the procedure and 14 instruments used during surgery were manually annotated, which served as the ground truth. Five algorithms with different input data: (1) a support vector machine input with cross-sectional instrument label data; (2) a recurrent neural network (RNN) input with a time series of instrument labels; (3) a convolutional neural network (CNN) input with cross-sectional image data; (4) a CNN-RNN input with a time series of images; and (5) a CNN-RNN input with time series of images and instrument labels. Each algorithm was evaluated with 5-fold cross-validation. Accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and precision. Unweighted accuracy for the 5 algorithms ranged between 0.915 and 0.959. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the 5 algorithms ranged between 0.712 and 0.773, with small differences among them. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the image-only CNN-RNN (0.752) was significantly greater than that of the CNN with cross-sectional image data (0.712) (difference, -0.040; 95% CI, -0.049 to -0.033) and the CNN-RNN with images and instrument labels (0.737) (difference, 0.016; 95% CI, 0.014 to 0.018). While specificity was uniformly high for all phases with all 5 algorithms (range, 0.877 to 0.999), sensitivity ranged between 0.005 (95% CI, 0.000 to 0.015) for the support vector machine for wound closure (corneal hydration) and 0.974 (95% CI, 0.957 to 0.991) for the RNN for main incision. Precision ranged between 0.283 and 0.963. Time series modeling of instrument labels and video images using deep learning techniques may yield potentially useful tools for the automated detection of phases in cataract surgery procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30951163
pii: 2729808
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1860
pmc: PMC6450320
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e191860Références
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;122(4):487-94
pubmed: 15078665
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Apr;40(4):657-65
pubmed: 24581974
Comput Math Methods Med. 2015;2015:202934
pubmed: 26693249
Ophthalmology. 2007 Feb;114(2):387-91
pubmed: 17187862
Ophthalmology. 2006 Jul;113(7):1237-44
pubmed: 16725202
Ophthalmology. 2016 May;123(5):1019-26
pubmed: 26854033
Med Image Anal. 2018 Jul;47:203-218
pubmed: 29778931
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;173:78-84
pubmed: 22356962
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015 Apr;34(4):877-87
pubmed: 25373078
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Apr;59(4):966-76
pubmed: 22203700
Biometrics. 2003 Jun;59(2):420-9
pubmed: 12926727
Med Image Anal. 2014 Apr;18(3):579-90
pubmed: 24637155
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007 Sep;125(9):1215-9
pubmed: 17846361
Natl Health Stat Report. 2017 Feb;(102):1-15
pubmed: 28256998