Performance of a Deep Learning Diabetic Retinopathy Algorithm in India
Abstract
Importance: While prospective studies have investigated the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME), to date, little published data exist on the clinical performance of these algorithms.
Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of an automated retinal disease assessment (ARDA) algorithm in the postdeployment setting at Aravind Eye Hospital in India.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis involved an approximate 1% sample of fundus photographs from patients screened using ARDA. Images were graded via adjudication by US ophthalmologists for DR and DME, and ARDA’s output was compared against the adjudicated grades at 45 sites in Southern India. Patients were randomly selected between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2023.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary analyses were the sensitivity and specificity of ARDA for severe nonproliferative DR (NPDR) or proliferative DR (PDR). Secondary analyses focused on sensitivity and specificity for sight-threatening DR (STDR) (DME or severe NPDR or PDR).
Results: Among the 4537 patients with 4537 images with adjudicated grades, mean (SD) age was 55.2 (11.9) years and 2272 (50.1%) were male. Among the 3941 patients with gradable photographs, 683 (17.3%) had any DR, 146 (3.7%) had severe NPDR or PDR, 109 (2.8%) had PDR, and 398 (10.1%) had STDR. ARDA’s sensitivity and specificity for severe NPDR or PDR were 97.0% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.2%) and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.7%-97.0%), respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 50.7% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.9%. The clinically important miss rate for severe NPDR or PDR was 0% (eg, some patients with severe NPDR or PDR were interpreted as having moderate DR and referred to clinic). ARDA’s sensitivity for STDR was 95.9% (95% CI, 93.0%-97.4%) and specificity was 94.9% (95% CI, 94.1%-95.7%); PPV and NPV were 67.9% and 99.5%, respectively.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study investigating the clinical performance of ARDA, sensitivity and specificity for severe NPDR and PDR exceeded 96% and caught 100% of patients with severe NPDR and PDR for ophthalmology referral. This preliminary large-scale postmarketing report of the performance of ARDA after screening 600 000 patients in India underscores the importance of monitoring and publication an algorithm's clinical performance, consistent with recommendations by regulatory bodies.
Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of an automated retinal disease assessment (ARDA) algorithm in the postdeployment setting at Aravind Eye Hospital in India.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis involved an approximate 1% sample of fundus photographs from patients screened using ARDA. Images were graded via adjudication by US ophthalmologists for DR and DME, and ARDA’s output was compared against the adjudicated grades at 45 sites in Southern India. Patients were randomly selected between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2023.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary analyses were the sensitivity and specificity of ARDA for severe nonproliferative DR (NPDR) or proliferative DR (PDR). Secondary analyses focused on sensitivity and specificity for sight-threatening DR (STDR) (DME or severe NPDR or PDR).
Results: Among the 4537 patients with 4537 images with adjudicated grades, mean (SD) age was 55.2 (11.9) years and 2272 (50.1%) were male. Among the 3941 patients with gradable photographs, 683 (17.3%) had any DR, 146 (3.7%) had severe NPDR or PDR, 109 (2.8%) had PDR, and 398 (10.1%) had STDR. ARDA’s sensitivity and specificity for severe NPDR or PDR were 97.0% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.2%) and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.7%-97.0%), respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 50.7% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.9%. The clinically important miss rate for severe NPDR or PDR was 0% (eg, some patients with severe NPDR or PDR were interpreted as having moderate DR and referred to clinic). ARDA’s sensitivity for STDR was 95.9% (95% CI, 93.0%-97.4%) and specificity was 94.9% (95% CI, 94.1%-95.7%); PPV and NPV were 67.9% and 99.5%, respectively.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study investigating the clinical performance of ARDA, sensitivity and specificity for severe NPDR and PDR exceeded 96% and caught 100% of patients with severe NPDR and PDR for ophthalmology referral. This preliminary large-scale postmarketing report of the performance of ARDA after screening 600 000 patients in India underscores the importance of monitoring and publication an algorithm's clinical performance, consistent with recommendations by regulatory bodies.
