UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Image Assessment Software: Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness Compared with Human Graders

Tufail, A; Rudisill, C; Egan, C; Kapetanakis, VV; Salas-Vega, S; Owen, CG; Lee, A; ... Rudnicka, AR; + view all (2016) Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Image Assessment Software: Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness Compared with Human Graders. Ophthalmology , 124 (3) pp. 343-351. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.014. Green open access

[thumbnail of Taylor_1-s2.0-S0161642016320188-main.pdf]
Preview
Text
Taylor_1-s2.0-S0161642016320188-main.pdf - Published Version

Download (945kB) | Preview

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing prevalence of diabetes, annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) by expert human grading of retinal images is challenging. Automated DR image assessment systems (ARIAS) may provide clinically effective and cost-effective detection of retinopathy. We aimed to determine whether ARIAS can be safely introduced into DR screening pathways to replace human graders. DESIGN: Observational measurement comparison study of human graders following a national screening program for DR versus ARIAS. PARTICIPANTS: Retinal images from 20 258 consecutive patients attending routine annual diabetic eye screening between June 1, 2012, and November 4, 2013. METHODS: Retinal images were manually graded following a standard national protocol for DR screening and were processed by 3 ARIAS: iGradingM, Retmarker, and EyeArt. Discrepancies between manual grades and ARIAS results were sent to a reading center for arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, false-positive rate) and diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence intervals of screening-performance measures) were determined. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome. RESULTS: Sensitivity point estimates (95% confidence intervals) of the ARIAS were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (94.2%-95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (92.9%-94.6%) for referable retinopathy (human graded as either ungradable, maculopathy, preproliferative, or proliferative), 99.6% (97.0%-99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; Retmarker 73.0% (72.0 %-74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (83.6%-86.2%) for referable retinopathy, 97.9% (94.9%-99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either having disease or being ungradable. EyeArt and Retmarker saved costs compared with manual grading both as a replacement for initial human grading and as a filter prior to primary human grading, although the latter approach was less cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt systems achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy when compared with that of human graders and had sufficient specificity to make them cost-effective alternatives to manual grading alone. ARIAS have the potential to reduce costs in developed-world health care economies and to aid delivery of DR screening in developing or remote health care settings.

Type: Article
Title: Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Image Assessment Software: Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness Compared with Human Graders
Location: United States
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.014
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.014
Language: English
Additional information: Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Institute of Ophthalmology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Institute of Health Informatics
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Institute of Health Informatics > CHIME
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1535169
Downloads since deposit
82Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item