Expert-Level Detection of Referable Glaucoma from Fundus Photographs in a Safety Net Population: The AI and Teleophthalmology in Los Angeles Initiative - Nguyen, Van; Iyengar, Sreenidhi; Rasheed, Haroon; Apolo, Galo; Li, Zhiwei; Kumar, Aniket; Nguyen, Hong; Bohner, Austin; Dhodapkar, Rahul; Do, Jiun; Duong, Andrew; Gluckstein, Jeffrey; et al. (medRxiv, 2024)
Purpose To develop and test a deep learning (DL) algorithm for detecting referable glaucoma in the Los Angeles County (LAC) Department of Health Services (DHS) teleretinal screening program.Methods Fundus photographs and patient-level labels of referable glaucoma (defined as cup-to-disc ratio [CDR] >= 0.6) provided by 21 trained optometrist graders were obtained from the LAC DHS teleretinal screening program. A DL algorithm based on the VGG-19 architecture was trained using patient-level labels generalized to images from both eyes. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to assess algorithm performance using an independent test set that was also graded by 13 clinicians with one to 15 years of experience. Algorithm performance was tested using reference labels provided by either LAC DHS optometrists or an expert panel of 3 glaucoma specialists.Results 12,098 images from 5,616 patients (2,086 referable glaucoma, 3,530 non-glaucoma) were used to train the DL algorithm. In this dataset, mean age was 56.8 extpm 10.5 years with 54.8% females and 68.2% Latinos, 8.9% Blacks, 2.7% Caucasians, and 6.0% Asians. 1,000 images from 500 patients (250 referable glaucoma, 250 non-glaucoma) with similar demographics (p >= 0.57) were used to test the DL algorithm. Algorithm performance matched or exceeded that of all independent clinician graders in detecting patient-level referable glaucoma based on LAC DHS optometrist (AUC = 0.92) or expert panel (AUC = 0.93) reference labels. Clinician grader sensitivity (range: 0.33-0.99) and specificity (range: 0.68-0.98) ranged widely and did not correlate with years of experience (p >= 0.49). Algorithm performance (AUC = 0.93) also matched or exceeded the sensitivity (range: 0.78-1.00) and specificity (range: 0.32-0.87) of 6 LAC DHS optometrists in the subsets of the test dataset they graded based on expert panel reference labels.Conclusions A DL algorithm for detecting referable glaucoma developed using patient-level data provided by trained LAC DHS optometrists approximates or exceeds performance by ophthalmologists and optometrists, who exhibit variable sensitivity and specificity unrelated to experience level. Implementation of this algorithm in screening workflows could help reallocate eye care resources and provide more reproducible and timely glaucoma care.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by grant R01 EY035677 and K23 EY032985 from the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; a DHS-USC Safety Net Innovation Award from the Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute; a AI4Health Award from the University of Southern California; and an unrestricted grant to the Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are not available.