算法
医学
人工智能
黄斑病
机器学习
分割
眼底(子宫)
计算机科学
验光服务
眼科
视网膜病变
内分泌学
糖尿病
作者
Bo Qian,Bin Sheng,Hao Chen,Xiangning Wang,Tingyao Li,Yixiao Jin,Zhouyu Guan,Zehua Jiang,Yi-Lan Wu,Jinyuan Wang,Ting‐Li Chen,Zhengrui Guo,X. Chen,Dawei Yang,Junlin Hou,Rui Feng,Fan Xiao,Yihao Li,Mostafa El Habib Daho,Lu Li,Ye Ding,Di Liu,Bo Yang,Wenhui Zhu,Yalin Wang,Hyeonmin Kim,Hyeonseob Nam,Huayu Li,Wei‐Chi Wu,Qiang Wu,Rongping Dai,Huating Li,Marcus Ang,Daniel Shu Wei Ting,Carol Y. Cheung,Sheng Wang,Ching‐Yu Cheng,Gavin Siew Wei Tan,Kyoko Ohno-Matsui,Jost B. Jonas,Yingfeng Zheng,Yih‐Chung Tham,Tien Yin Wong,Ya Xing Wang
出处
期刊:JAMA Ophthalmology
[American Medical Association]
日期:2024-09-26
卷期号:142 (11): 1006-1006
被引量:1
标识
DOI:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.3707
摘要
Importance Myopic maculopathy (MM) is a major cause of vision impairment globally. Artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) algorithms for detecting MM from fundus images could potentially improve diagnosis and assist screening in a variety of health care settings. Objectives To evaluate DL algorithms for MM classification and segmentation and compare their performance with that of ophthalmologists. Design, Setting, and Participants The Myopic Maculopathy Analysis Challenge (MMAC) was an international competition to develop automated solutions for 3 tasks: (1) MM classification, (2) segmentation of MM plus lesions, and (3) spherical equivalent (SE) prediction. Participants were provided 3 subdatasets containing 2306, 294, and 2003 fundus images, respectively, with which to build algorithms. A group of 5 ophthalmologists evaluated the same test sets for tasks 1 and 2 to ascertain performance. Results from model ensembles, which combined outcomes from multiple algorithms submitted by MMAC participants, were compared with each individual submitted algorithm. This study was conducted from March 1, 2023, to March 30, 2024, and data were analyzed from January 15, 2024, to March 30, 2024. Exposure DL algorithms submitted as part of the MMAC competition or ophthalmologist interpretation. Main Outcomes and Measures MM classification was evaluated by quadratic-weighted κ (QWK), F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity. MM plus lesions segmentation was evaluated by dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and SE prediction was evaluated by R 2 and mean absolute error (MAE). Results The 3 tasks were completed by 7, 4, and 4 teams, respectively. MM classification algorithms achieved a QWK range of 0.866 to 0.901, an F1 score range of 0.675 to 0.781, a sensitivity range of 0.667 to 0.778, and a specificity range of 0.931 to 0.945. MM plus lesions segmentation algorithms achieved a DSC range of 0.664 to 0.687 for lacquer cracks (LC), 0.579 to 0.673 for choroidal neovascularization, and 0.768 to 0.841 for Fuchs spot (FS). SE prediction algorithms achieved an R 2 range of 0.791 to 0.874 and an MAE range of 0.708 to 0.943. Model ensemble results achieved the best performance compared to each submitted algorithms, and the model ensemble outperformed ophthalmologists at MM classification in sensitivity (0.801; 95% CI, 0.764-0.840 vs 0.727; 95% CI, 0.684-0.768; P = .006) and specificity (0.946; 95% CI, 0.939-0.954 vs 0.933; 95% CI, 0.925-0.941; P = .009), LC segmentation (DSC, 0.698; 95% CI, 0.649-0.745 vs DSC, 0.570; 95% CI, 0.515-0.625; P < .001), and FS segmentation (DSC, 0.863; 95% CI, 0.831-0.888 vs DSC, 0.790; 95% CI, 0.742-0.830; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this diagnostic study, 15 AI models for MM classification and segmentation on a public dataset made available for the MMAC competition were validated and evaluated, with some models achieving better diagnostic performance than ophthalmologists.