» Articles » PMID: 35906419

Validation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Retinal Image Grading by Trained Non-ophthalmologist Grader for Detecting Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Overview
Journal Eye (Lond)
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2022 Jul 29
PMID 35906419
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To validate the fundus image grading results by a trained grader (Non-ophthalmologist) and an ophthalmologist grader for detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO) against fundus examination by a retina specialist (gold standard).

Methods: A prospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using 2002 non-mydriatic colour fundus images from 1001 patients aged ≥40 years. Using the Aravind Diabetic Retinopathy Evaluation Software (ADRES) images were graded by both a trained non-ophthalmologist grader (grader-1) and an ophthalmologist (grader-2). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for grader-1 and grader-2 against the grading results by an independent retina specialist who performed dilated fundus examination for every study participant.

Results: Out of 1001 patients included, 42% were women and the mean ± (SD) age was 55.8 (8.39) years. For moderate or worse DR, the sensitivity and specificity for grading by grader-1 with respect to the gold standard was 66.9% and 91.0% respectively and the same for the ophthalmologist was 83.6% and 80.3% respectively. For referable DMO, grader-1 and grader-2 had a sensitivity of 74.6% and 85.6% respectively and a specificity of 83.7% and 79.8% respectively.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate good level of accuracy for the fundus image grading performed by a trained non-ophthalmologist which was comparable with the grading by an ophthalmologist. Engaging trained non-ophthalmologists potentially can enhance the efficiency of DR diagnosis using fundus images. Further study with multiple non-ophthalmologist graders is needed to verify the results and strategies to improve agreement for DMO diagnosis are needed.

Citing Articles

Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups.

Wada-Koike C, Terauchi R, Fukai K, Sano K, Nishijima E, Komatsu K Clin Ophthalmol. 2024; 18:583-589.

PMID: 38435375 PMC: 10908285. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S453663.

References
1.
Heydon P, Egan C, Bolter L, Chambers R, Anderson J, Aldington S . Prospective evaluation of an artificial intelligence-enabled algorithm for automated diabetic retinopathy screening of 30 000 patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020; 105(5):723-728. PMC: 8077216. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316594. View

2.
Ruamviboonsuk P, Teerasuwanajak K, Tiensuwan M, Yuttitham K . Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of single-field digital fundus images for diabetic retinopathy screening. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(5):826-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.11.021. View

3.
Luhar S, Timaeus I, Jones R, Cunningham S, Patel S, Kinra S . Forecasting the prevalence of overweight and obesity in India to 2040. PLoS One. 2020; 15(2):e0229438. PMC: 7039458. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229438. View

4.
van Allen Z, Dogba M, Brent M, Bach C, Grimshaw J, Ivers N . Barriers to and enablers of attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening experienced by immigrants to Canada from multiple cultural and linguistic minority groups. Diabet Med. 2020; 38(4):e14429. DOI: 10.1111/dme.14429. View

5.
Rani P, Raman R, Sharma V, Mahuli S, Tarigopala A, R R Sudhir . Analysis of a comprehensive diabetic retinopathy screening model for rural and urban diabetics in developing countries. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007; 91(11):1425-9. PMC: 2095459. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.120659. View