Human Versus Machine: Comparing a Deep Learning Algorithm to Human Gradings for Detecting Glaucoma on Fundus Photographs.
Aged
Algorithms
Area Under Curve
Cross-Sectional Studies
Deep Learning
Female
Fundus Oculi
Glaucoma, Open-Angle
/ diagnosis
Gonioscopy
Humans
Intraocular Pressure
/ physiology
Male
Middle Aged
Nerve Fibers
/ pathology
Optic Nerve Diseases
/ diagnosis
Photography
Physical Examination
ROC Curve
Retinal Ganglion Cells
/ pathology
Retrospective Studies
Tomography, Optical Coherence
Vision Disorders
/ diagnosis
Visual Field Tests
/ methods
Visual Fields
/ physiology
Journal
American journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 1879-1891
Titre abrégé: Am J Ophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370500
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
24
08
2019
revised:
29
10
2019
accepted:
04
11
2019
pubmed:
16
11
2019
medline:
2
5
2020
entrez:
16
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the diagnostic performance of human gradings vs predictions provided by a machine-to-machine (M2M) deep learning (DL) algorithm trained to quantify retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) damage on fundus photographs. Evaluation of a machine learning algorithm. An M2M DL algorithm trained with RNFL thickness parameters from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography was applied to a subset of 490 fundus photos of 490 eyes of 370 subjects graded by 2 glaucoma specialists for the probability of glaucomatous optical neuropathy (GON), and estimates of cup-to-disc (C/D) ratios. Spearman correlations with standard automated perimetry (SAP) global indices were compared between the human gradings vs the M2M DL-predicted RNFL thickness values. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and partial AUC for the region of clinically meaningful specificity (85%-100%) were used to compare the ability of each output to discriminate eyes with repeatable glaucomatous SAP defects vs eyes with normal fields. The M2M DL-predicted RNFL thickness had a significantly stronger absolute correlation with SAP mean deviation (rho=0.54) than the probability of GON given by human graders (rho=0.48; P < .001). The partial AUC for the M2M DL algorithm was significantly higher than that for the probability of GON by human graders (partial AUC = 0.529 vs 0.411, respectively; P = .016). An M2M DL algorithm performed as well as, if not better than, human graders at detecting eyes with repeatable glaucomatous visual field loss. This DL algorithm could potentially replace human graders in population screening efforts for glaucoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31730838
pii: S0002-9394(19)30543-4
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.11.006
pmc: PMC7073295
mid: NIHMS1542870
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
123-131Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : K23 EY030897
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY029885
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
JAMA. 2018 Sep 18;320(11):1101-1102
pubmed: 30178065
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Jun;47(6):2520-7
pubmed: 16723465
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Aug;51(8):4104-9
pubmed: 20335619
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 May;132(5):560-6
pubmed: 24699817
Ophthalmology. 2015 Oct;122(10):2002-9
pubmed: 26198809
Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 May;157(5):936-44
pubmed: 24508161
Ophthalmology. 2011 Jul;118(7):1334-9
pubmed: 21377735
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 04;10(3):e0118432
pubmed: 25738806
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;140(4):762-4
pubmed: 16226544
JAMA. 1991 Jul 17;266(3):369-74
pubmed: 2056646
Arch Ophthalmol. 1967 Jul;78(1):35-43
pubmed: 6067496
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 17;9(1):e85654
pubmed: 24465636
Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jan;147(1):39-44.e1
pubmed: 18790472
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2001;99:177-84; discussion 184-5
pubmed: 11797305
Ophthalmology. 1988 Mar;95(3):350-6
pubmed: 3174002
Am J Ophthalmol. 1996 Jun;121(6):659-67
pubmed: 8644809
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2017 Jun 21;19:221-248
pubmed: 28301734
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Nov;48(11):4974-9
pubmed: 17962447
Ophthalmology. 2018 Aug;125(8):1199-1206
pubmed: 29506863
Biostatistics. 2002 Sep;3(3):421-32
pubmed: 12933607
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 12;8(1):16685
pubmed: 30420630
Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 15;9(1):4642
pubmed: 30874616
Ophthalmology. 2011 Feb;118(2):241-8.e1
pubmed: 20920824
Ophthalmol Retina. 2017 Jul-Aug;1(4):322-327
pubmed: 30693348
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Oct;127(10):1250-6
pubmed: 19822839
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Jul 1;57(9):OCT556-67
pubmed: 27537415
Ophthalmology. 2014 Nov;121(11):2081-90
pubmed: 24974815
Ophthalmology. 1992 Feb;99(2):215-21
pubmed: 1553210
Ophthalmology. 2019 Apr;126(4):513-521
pubmed: 30578810