Predicting optical coherence tomography-derived diabetic macular edema grades from fundus photographs using deep learning

Diabetic eye disease is one of the fastest growing causes of preventable blindness. With the advent of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) therapies, it has become increasingly important to detect center-involved diabetic macular edema (ci-DME). However, center-involved diabetic macular edema is diagnosed using optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is not generally available at screening sites because of cost and workflow constraints. Instead, screening programs rely on the detection of hard exudates in color fundus photographs as a proxy for DME, often resulting in high false positive or false negative calls. To improve the accuracy of DME screening, we trained a deep learning model to use color fundus photographs to predict ci-DME. Our model had an ROC-AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.91), which corresponds to a sensitivity of 85% at a specificity of 80%. In comparison, three retinal specialists had similar sensitivities (82-85%), but only half the specificity (45-50%, p<0.001 for each comparison with model). The positive predictive value (PPV) of the model was 61% (95% CI: 56-66%), approximately double the 36-38% by the retinal specialists. In addition to predicting ci-DME, our model was able to detect the presence of intraretinal fluid with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and subretinal fluid with an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91). The ability of deep learning algorithms to make clinically relevant predictions that generally require sophisticated 3D-imaging equipment from simple 2D images has broad relevance to many other applications in medical imaging

Patient, family member, and health care provider perspective on barriers and facilitators to diabetic retinopathy screening in Thailand: A qualitative study

Objectives: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) can cause significant visual impairment which can be largely avoided by early detection through proper screening and treatment. People with DR face a number of challenges from early detection to treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that influence DR screening in Thailand and to identify barriers to follow-up compliance from patient, family member, and health care provider (HCP) perspectives.Methods: A total of 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, each with five to twelve participants. There were three distinct stakeholders: diabetic patients (n = 47) presenting to a diabetic retinopathy clinic in Thailand, their family members (n = 41), and health care providers (n = 34). All focus group conversations were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to examine textual material.Results: Different themes emerged from the FGD on knowledge about diabetes, self-care behaviors of diabetes mellitus (DM), awareness about DR, barriers to DR screening, and the suggested solutions to address those barriers. Data showed lower knowledge and awareness about diabetes and DR in both patients and family members. Long waiting times, financial issues, and lack of a person to accompany appointments were identified as the major deterrents for attending DR screening. Family support for patients was found to vary widely, with some patients reporting to have received adequate support while others reported having received minimal support. Even though insurance covered the cost of attending diabetes/DR screening program, some patients did not show up for their appointments.Conclusion: Patients need to be well-informed about the asymptomatic nature of diabetes and DR. Communication at the patient level and shared decision-making with HCPs are essential. Family members and non-physician clinicians (such as diabetes nurses, diabetes educators, physician assistants) who work in the field of diabetes play a vital role in encouraging patients to attend diabetes and DR follow-ups visits regularly.</p

Predicting optical coherence tomography-derived diabetic macular edema grades from fundus photographs using deep learning

Center-involved diabetic macular edema (ci-DME) is a major cause of vision loss. Although the gold standard for diagnosis involves 3D imaging, 2D imaging by fundus photography is usually used in screening settings, resulting in high false-positive and false-negative calls. To address this, we train a deep learning model to predict ci-DME from fundus photographs, with an ROC-AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.91), corresponding&nbsp;to 85% sensitivity at 80% specificity. In comparison, retinal specialists have similar sensitivities (82-85%), but only half the specificity (45-50%, p &lt; 0.001). Our model can also detect the presence of intraretinal fluid (AUC: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and subretinal fluid (AUC 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.91). Using deep learning to make predictions via simple 2D images without sophisticated 3D-imaging equipment&nbsp;and with better than specialist performance, has broad relevance to many other applications in medical imaging

Longitudinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy in a Nationwide Screening Program: Comparing Deep Learning and Human Graders

Objective. To evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening via deep learning (DL) and trained human graders (HG) in a longitudinal cohort, as case spectrum shifts based on treatment referral and new-onset DR. Methods. We randomly selected patients with diabetes screened twice, two years apart within a nationwide screening program. The reference standard was established via adjudication by retina specialists. Each patient’s color fundus photographs were graded, and a patient was considered as having sight-threatening DR (STDR) if the worse eye had severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or diabetic macular edema. We compared DR screening via two modalities: DL and HG. For each modality, we simulated treatment referral by excluding patients with detected STDR from the second screening using that modality. Results. There were 5,738 patients (12.3% STDR) in the first screening. DL and HG captured different numbers of STDR cases, and after simulated referral and excluding ungradable cases, 4,148 and 4,263 patients remained in the second screening, respectively. The STDR prevalence at the second screening was 5.1% and 6.8% for DL- and HG-based screening, respectively. Along with the prevalence decrease, the sensitivity for both modalities decreased from the first to the second screening (DL: from 95% to 90%, p=0.008; HG: from 74% to 57%, p<0.001). At both the first and second screenings, the rate of false negatives for the DL was a fifth that of HG (0.5-0.6% vs. 2.9-3.2%). Conclusion. On 2-year longitudinal follow-up of a DR screening cohort, STDR prevalence decreased for both DL- and HG-based screening. Follow-up screenings in longitudinal DR screening can be more difficult and induce lower sensitivity for both DL and HG, though the false negative rate was substantially lower for DL. Our data may be useful for health-economics analyses of longitudinal screening settings