Comparative Performance of retinIA, an AI-powered Ophthalmic Screening Tool, and First-Year Residents in Retinal Disease Detection and Glaucoma Assessment: A Study in a Mexican Tertiary Care Setting
Dalia Camacho-García-Formentí, Gabriela Baylón-Vázquez, Karen Janeth Arriozola-Rodríguez, Luis Enrique Avalos-Ramirez, Curt Hartleben-Matkin, Hugo Francisco Valdez Flores, Damaris Hodelin-Fuentes, Alejandro Noriega Campero
{"title":"Comparative Performance of retinIA, an AI-powered Ophthalmic Screening Tool, and First-Year Residents in Retinal Disease Detection and Glaucoma Assessment: A Study in a Mexican Tertiary Care Setting","authors":"Dalia Camacho-García-Formentí, Gabriela Baylón-Vázquez, Karen Janeth Arriozola-Rodríguez, Luis Enrique Avalos-Ramirez, Curt Hartleben-Matkin, Hugo Francisco Valdez Flores, Damaris Hodelin-Fuentes, Alejandro Noriega Campero","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.26.24311677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in ophthalmology, but its performance in diverse healthcare settings remains understudied. We evaluated retinIA, an AI-powered screening tool developed with Mexican data, against first-year ophthalmology residents in a tertiary\ncare setting in Mexico City.\nMethods: We analyzed 435 adult patients undergoing their first ophthalmic evaluation. RetinIA and residents' assessments were compared\nagainst expert annotations for retinal lesions, cup-to-disk ratio (CDR) measurements, and glaucoma suspect detection. We also evaluated a synergistic approach combining AI and resident assessments.\nResults: For glaucoma suspect detection, retinIA outperformed residents in accuracy (88.6% vs 82.9%, p = 0.016), sensitivity (63.0% vs\n50.0%, p = 0.116), and specificity (94.5% vs 90.5%, p = 0.062). While, the synergistic approach deemed a higher sensitivity (80.4%) than ophthalmic residents alone or retinIA alone (p < 0.001). RetinIA's CDR estimates showed lower mean absolute error (0.056 vs 0.105, p < 0.001) and\nhigher correlation with expert measurements (r = 0.728 vs r = 0.538). In retinal lesion detection, retinIA demonstrated superior sensitivity (90.1%\nvs 63.0% for medium/high-risk lesions, p < 0.001) and specificity (95.8% vs 90.4%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, differences between retinIA and residents were statistically significant across all metrics. The synergistic\napproach achieved the highest sensitivity for retinal lesions (92.6% for medium/high-risk, 100% for high-risk) while maintaining good specificity\n(87.4%).\nConclusion: RetinIA outperforms first-year residents in key ophthalmic assessments. The synergistic use of AI and resident assessments\nshows potential for optimizing diagnostic accuracy, highlighting the value\nof AI as a supportive tool in ophthalmic practice, especially for early-career clinicians.","PeriodicalId":501390,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Ophthalmology","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.26.24311677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in ophthalmology, but its performance in diverse healthcare settings remains understudied. We evaluated retinIA, an AI-powered screening tool developed with Mexican data, against first-year ophthalmology residents in a tertiary
care setting in Mexico City.
Methods: We analyzed 435 adult patients undergoing their first ophthalmic evaluation. RetinIA and residents' assessments were compared
against expert annotations for retinal lesions, cup-to-disk ratio (CDR) measurements, and glaucoma suspect detection. We also evaluated a synergistic approach combining AI and resident assessments.
Results: For glaucoma suspect detection, retinIA outperformed residents in accuracy (88.6% vs 82.9%, p = 0.016), sensitivity (63.0% vs
50.0%, p = 0.116), and specificity (94.5% vs 90.5%, p = 0.062). While, the synergistic approach deemed a higher sensitivity (80.4%) than ophthalmic residents alone or retinIA alone (p < 0.001). RetinIA's CDR estimates showed lower mean absolute error (0.056 vs 0.105, p < 0.001) and
higher correlation with expert measurements (r = 0.728 vs r = 0.538). In retinal lesion detection, retinIA demonstrated superior sensitivity (90.1%
vs 63.0% for medium/high-risk lesions, p < 0.001) and specificity (95.8% vs 90.4%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, differences between retinIA and residents were statistically significant across all metrics. The synergistic
approach achieved the highest sensitivity for retinal lesions (92.6% for medium/high-risk, 100% for high-risk) while maintaining good specificity
(87.4%).
Conclusion: RetinIA outperforms first-year residents in key ophthalmic assessments. The synergistic use of AI and resident assessments
shows potential for optimizing diagnostic accuracy, highlighting the value
of AI as a supportive tool in ophthalmic practice, especially for early-career clinicians.