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":"人工智能眼科筛查工具 retinIA 与一年级住院医师在视网膜疾病检测和青光眼评估方面的性能比较:墨西哥三级医疗机构的一项研究","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:人工智能(AI)在眼科领域大有可为,但其在不同医疗环境中的表现仍未得到充分研究。我们在墨西哥城的一家三级医疗机构,针对一年级眼科住院医师评估了利用墨西哥数据开发的人工智能筛查工具 retinIA:我们对首次接受眼科评估的 435 名成年患者进行了分析。我们将 RetinIA 和住院医生的评估结果与专家对视网膜病变、杯盘比(CDR)测量和青光眼疑似病例检测的注释进行了比较。我们还评估了一种结合人工智能和住院医师评估的协同方法:结果:对于青光眼疑似病例的检测,retinIA 在准确性(88.6% vs 82.9%,p = 0.016)、灵敏度(63.0% vs 50.0%,p = 0.116)和特异性(94.5% vs 90.5%,p = 0.062)方面均优于住院医生。而协同方法的灵敏度(80.4%)比单独使用眼科住院医师或单独使用视网膜内皮素IA更高(p <0.001)。RetinIA 的 CDR 估计值显示出更低的平均绝对误差(0.056 vs 0.105,p <0.001)和更高的与专家测量值的相关性(r = 0.728 vs r = 0.538)。在视网膜病变检测方面,retinIA 的灵敏度(90.1% 对 63.0%,p <0.001)和特异性(95.8% 对 90.4%,p <0.001)更胜一筹。此外,在所有指标上,视网膜内窥镜和住院医师之间的差异都具有统计学意义。协同方法对视网膜病变的敏感性最高(中/高风险为 92.6%,高风险为 100%),同时保持良好的特异性(87.4%):RetinIA在关键眼科评估方面的表现优于一年级住院医师。人工智能和住院医师评估的协同使用显示了优化诊断准确性的潜力,凸显了人工智能作为眼科实践中的辅助工具的价值,尤其是对于初入职场的临床医师而言。
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
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.