人工智能视网膜液监测在优化条件下对新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性与不同眼科保健专业人员人工评估的比较

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Martin Michl, Bianca S Gerendas, Anastasiia Gruber, Felix Goldbach, Georgios Mylonas, Oliver Leingang, Wolf Bühl, Stefan Sacu, Hrvoje Bogunovic, Amir Sadeghipour, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth
{"title":"人工智能视网膜液监测在优化条件下对新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性与不同眼科保健专业人员人工评估的比较","authors":"Martin Michl, Bianca S Gerendas, Anastasiia Gruber, Felix Goldbach, Georgios Mylonas, Oliver Leingang, Wolf Bühl, Stefan Sacu, Hrvoje Bogunovic, Amir Sadeghipour, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth","doi":"10.1111/aos.17458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether automated intra- and subretinal fluid (IRF/SRF) volume measurements are equivalent to manual evaluations by eye care professionals from different backgrounds on real-world optical coherence tomography (OCT) images in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Routine OCT images (Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering) were obtained during standard-of-care anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD at a tertiary referral centre. IRF/SRF presence and change (increase/decrease/stability) were assessed without time constraints by five retinologists, three ophthalmology residents, three general ophthalmologists, three orthoptists and three certified readers. Fluid volumes were segmented and quantified using a regulatory-approved AI-based tool (Vienna Fluid Monitor, RetInSight, Vienna, Austria). Sensitivity/specificity (Sen/Spe) for grading fluid presence and kappa agreement were calculated for each group. Their performances in distinguishing between IRF/SRF increase and decrease were assessed using AUCs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 124 follow-up visit pairs of 59 eyes with active nAMD were included. Across all five groups, fluid volumes >5 nL were identified with values of 0.81-0.95 (Sen)/0.70-0.91 (Spe) for IRF and 0.89-0.98 (Sen)/0.74-0.90 (Spe) for SRF. Interpretations of IRF changes between -17 nL and +3 nL and SRF changes between -9.30 nL and +6.50 nL were associated with Sen > 0.80 and Spe > 0.87 among all groups. Agreements between the algorithm and groups in grading IRF/SRF presence ranged from κ = 0.69-0.82/0.73-0.79. The AUC for correctly classifying fluid change was >0.89 across all groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Eye care professionals with different levels of clinical expertise assessed disease activity on standard OCT images with comparable accuracy. Despite optimizing the methodology and time resources, manual performance did not reach the high level of automated fluid monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":6915,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of AI-based retinal fluid monitoring in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with manual assessment by different eye care professionals under optimized conditions.\",\"authors\":\"Martin Michl, Bianca S Gerendas, Anastasiia Gruber, Felix Goldbach, Georgios Mylonas, Oliver Leingang, Wolf Bühl, Stefan Sacu, Hrvoje Bogunovic, Amir Sadeghipour, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aos.17458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether automated intra- and subretinal fluid (IRF/SRF) volume measurements are equivalent to manual evaluations by eye care professionals from different backgrounds on real-world optical coherence tomography (OCT) images in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Routine OCT images (Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering) were obtained during standard-of-care anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD at a tertiary referral centre. IRF/SRF presence and change (increase/decrease/stability) were assessed without time constraints by five retinologists, three ophthalmology residents, three general ophthalmologists, three orthoptists and three certified readers. Fluid volumes were segmented and quantified using a regulatory-approved AI-based tool (Vienna Fluid Monitor, RetInSight, Vienna, Austria). Sensitivity/specificity (Sen/Spe) for grading fluid presence and kappa agreement were calculated for each group. Their performances in distinguishing between IRF/SRF increase and decrease were assessed using AUCs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 124 follow-up visit pairs of 59 eyes with active nAMD were included. Across all five groups, fluid volumes >5 nL were identified with values of 0.81-0.95 (Sen)/0.70-0.91 (Spe) for IRF and 0.89-0.98 (Sen)/0.74-0.90 (Spe) for SRF. Interpretations of IRF changes between -17 nL and +3 nL and SRF changes between -9.30 nL and +6.50 nL were associated with Sen > 0.80 and Spe > 0.87 among all groups. Agreements between the algorithm and groups in grading IRF/SRF presence ranged from κ = 0.69-0.82/0.73-0.79. The AUC for correctly classifying fluid change was >0.89 across all groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Eye care professionals with different levels of clinical expertise assessed disease activity on standard OCT images with comparable accuracy. Despite optimizing the methodology and time resources, manual performance did not reach the high level of automated fluid monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Ophthalmologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Ophthalmologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.17458\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.17458","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究自动视网膜内液和视网膜下液(IRF/SRF)体积测量是否等同于来自不同背景的眼科保健专业人员对新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(nAMD)的真实光学相干断层扫描(OCT)图像的人工评估。方法:常规OCT图像(Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering)在三级转诊中心进行标准治疗抗vegf治疗期间获得。在没有时间限制的情况下,由5名视网膜医生、3名眼科住院医生、3名普通眼科医生、3名骨科医生和3名认证阅读者评估IRF/SRF的存在和变化(增加/减少/稳定)。使用监管部门批准的基于人工智能的工具(Vienna Fluid Monitor, RetInSight, Vienna, Austria)对流体体积进行分段和定量。计算各组流体存在分级的敏感性/特异性(Sen/Spe)和kappa一致性。使用auc评估其区分IRF/SRF增加和减少的性能。结果:共随访124对59只眼。在所有五组中,流体体积bbb50 nL的值为0.81-0.95 (Sen)/0.70-0.91 (Spe), IRF的值为0.89-0.98 (Sen)/0.74-0.90 (Spe)。在-17 nL和+3 nL之间的IRF变化和-9.30 nL和+6.50 nL之间的SRF变化的解释与Sen > 0.80和Spe > 0.87相关。算法与组间IRF/SRF存在度评分的一致性范围为κ = 0.69-0.82/0.73-0.79。各组正确分类流体变化的AUC均为bb0 0.89。结论:不同临床专业水平的眼科护理专业人员在标准OCT图像上评估疾病活动性的准确性相当。尽管优化了方法和时间资源,但人工性能没有达到自动化流体监测的高水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of AI-based retinal fluid monitoring in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with manual assessment by different eye care professionals under optimized conditions.

Purpose: To investigate whether automated intra- and subretinal fluid (IRF/SRF) volume measurements are equivalent to manual evaluations by eye care professionals from different backgrounds on real-world optical coherence tomography (OCT) images in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Methods: Routine OCT images (Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering) were obtained during standard-of-care anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD at a tertiary referral centre. IRF/SRF presence and change (increase/decrease/stability) were assessed without time constraints by five retinologists, three ophthalmology residents, three general ophthalmologists, three orthoptists and three certified readers. Fluid volumes were segmented and quantified using a regulatory-approved AI-based tool (Vienna Fluid Monitor, RetInSight, Vienna, Austria). Sensitivity/specificity (Sen/Spe) for grading fluid presence and kappa agreement were calculated for each group. Their performances in distinguishing between IRF/SRF increase and decrease were assessed using AUCs.

Results: About 124 follow-up visit pairs of 59 eyes with active nAMD were included. Across all five groups, fluid volumes >5 nL were identified with values of 0.81-0.95 (Sen)/0.70-0.91 (Spe) for IRF and 0.89-0.98 (Sen)/0.74-0.90 (Spe) for SRF. Interpretations of IRF changes between -17 nL and +3 nL and SRF changes between -9.30 nL and +6.50 nL were associated with Sen > 0.80 and Spe > 0.87 among all groups. Agreements between the algorithm and groups in grading IRF/SRF presence ranged from κ = 0.69-0.82/0.73-0.79. The AUC for correctly classifying fluid change was >0.89 across all groups.

Conclusion: Eye care professionals with different levels of clinical expertise assessed disease activity on standard OCT images with comparable accuracy. Despite optimizing the methodology and time resources, manual performance did not reach the high level of automated fluid monitoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Ophthalmologica
Acta Ophthalmologica 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
433
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Acta Ophthalmologica is published on behalf of the Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation and is the official scientific publication of the following societies: The Danish Ophthalmological Society, The Finnish Ophthalmological Society, The Icelandic Ophthalmological Society, The Norwegian Ophthalmological Society and The Swedish Ophthalmological Society, and also the European Association for Vision and Eye Research (EVER). Acta Ophthalmologica publishes clinical and experimental original articles, reviews, editorials, educational photo essays (Diagnosis and Therapy in Ophthalmology), case reports and case series, letters to the editor and doctoral theses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信