Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective.

Background: Many artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused on development of AI models, novel techniques, and reporting guidelines. However, little is understood about clinicians' perspectives of AI applications in medical fields including ophthalmology, particularly in light of recent regulatory guidelines. The aim for this study was to evaluate the perspectives of ophthalmologists regarding AI in 4 major eye conditions: diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract. Methods: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning. Results: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83. Conclusion: Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective

Background Many artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused on development of AI models, novel techniques, and reporting guidelines. However, little is understood about clinicians' perspectives of AI applications in medical fields including ophthalmology, particularly in light of recent regulatory guidelines. The aim for this study was to evaluate the perspectives of ophthalmologists regarding AI in 4 major eye conditions: diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract. Methods This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning. Results One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10–12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63–0.83. Conclusion Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.

Cardiovascular disease and mortality sequelae of COVID-19 in the UK Biobank.

OBJECTIVE: To examine association of COVID-19 with incident cardiovascular events in 17 871 UK Biobank cases between March 2020 and 2021. METHODS: COVID-19 cases were defined using health record linkage. Each case was propensity score-matched to two uninfected controls on age, sex, deprivation, body mass index, ethnicity, diabetes, prevalent ischaemic heart disease (IHD), smoking, hypertension and high cholesterol. We included the following incident outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism (VTE), pericarditis, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, IHD death. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate associations of COVID-19 with each outcome over an average of 141 days (range 32-395) of prospective follow-up. RESULTS: Non-hospitalised cases (n=14 304) had increased risk of incident VTE (HR 2.74 (95% CI 1.38 to 5.45), p=0.004) and death (HR 10.23 (95% CI 7.63 to 13.70), p<0.0001). Individuals with primary COVID-19 hospitalisation (n=2701) had increased risk of all outcomes considered. The largest effect sizes were with VTE (HR 27.6 (95% CI 14.5 to 52.3); p<0.0001), heart failure (HR 21.6 (95% CI 10.9 to 42.9); p<0.0001) and stroke (HR 17.5 (95% CI 5.26 to 57.9); p<0.0001). Those hospitalised with COVID-19 as a secondary diagnosis (n=866) had similarly increased cardiovascular risk. The associated risks were greatest in the first 30 days after infection but remained higher than controls even after this period. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 have increased risk of incident cardiovascular events across a range of disease and mortality outcomes. The risk of most events is highest in the early postinfection period. Individuals not requiring hospitalisation have increased risk of VTE, but not of other cardiovascular-specific outcomes.

Machine learning-based derivation and external validation of a tool to predict death and development of organ failure in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 mortality risk stratification tools could improve care, inform accurate and rapid triage decisions, and guide family discussions regarding goals of care. A minority of COVID-19 prognostic tools have been tested in external cohorts. Our objective was to compare machine learning algorithms and develop a tool for predicting subsequent clinical outcomes in COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from March 2020 to March 2021. Seven Hundred Twelve consecutive patients from University of Washington and 345 patients from Tongji Hospital in China were included. We applied three different machine learning algorithms to clinical and laboratory data collected within the initial 24 h of hospital admission to determine the risk of in-hospital mortality, transfer to the intensive care unit, shock requiring vasopressors, and receipt of renal replacement therapy. Mortality risk models were derived, internally validated in UW and externally validated in Tongji Hospital. The risk models for ICU transfer, shock and RRT were derived and internally validated in the UW dataset but were unable to be externally validated due to a lack of data on these outcomes. Among the UW dataset, 122 patients died (17%) during hospitalization and the mean days to hospital mortality was 15.7 +/- 21.5 (mean +/- SD). Elastic net logistic regression resulted in a C-statistic for in-hospital mortality of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81) in the internal validation and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.89) in the external validation set. Age, platelet count, and white blood cell count were the most important predictors of mortality. In the sub-group of patients > 50 years of age, the mortality prediction model continued to perform with a C-statistic of 0.82 (95% CI:0.76,0.87). Prediction models also performed well for shock and RRT in the UW dataset but functioned with lower accuracy for ICU transfer. We trained, internally and externally validated a prediction model using data collected within 24 h of hospital admission to predict in-hospital mortality on average two weeks prior to death. We also developed models to predict RRT and shock with high accuracy. These models could be used to improve triage decisions, resource allocation, and support clinical trial enrichment.

Deep learning models for COVID-19 chest x-ray classification: Preventing shortcut learning using feature disentanglement.

In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, recent research has proposed creating deep learning based models that use chest radiographs (CXRs) in a variety of clinical tasks to help manage the crisis. However, the size of existing datasets of CXRs from COVID-19+ patients are relatively small, and researchers often pool CXR data from multiple sources, for example, using different x-ray machines in various patient populations under different clinical scenarios. Deep learning models trained on such datasets have been shown to overfit to erroneous features instead of learning pulmonary characteristics in a phenomenon known as shortcut learning. We propose adding feature disentanglement to the training process. This technique forces the models to identify pulmonary features from the images and penalizes them for learning features that can discriminate between the original datasets that the images come from. We find that models trained in this way indeed have better generalization performance on unseen data; in the best case we found that it improved AUC by 0.13 on held out data. We further find that this outperforms masking out non-lung parts of the CXRs and performing histogram equalization, both of which are recently proposed methods for removing biases in CXR datasets.

Effective deep learning approaches for predicting COVID-19 outcomes from chest computed tomography volumes.

The rapid evolution of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in an urgent need for effective clinical tools to reduce transmission and manage severe illness. Numerous teams are quickly developing artificial intelligence approaches to these problems, including using deep learning to predict COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis from chest computed tomography (CT) imaging data. In this work, we assess the value of aggregated chest CT data for COVID-19 prognosis compared to clinical metadata alone. We develop a novel patient-level algorithm to aggregate the chest CT volume into a 2D representation that can be easily integrated with clinical metadata to distinguish COVID-19 pneumonia from chest CT volumes from healthy participants and participants with other viral pneumonia. Furthermore, we present a multitask model for joint segmentation of different classes of pulmonary lesions present in COVID-19 infected lungs that can outperform individual segmentation models for each task. We directly compare this multitask segmentation approach to combining feature-agnostic volumetric CT classification feature maps with clinical metadata for predicting mortality. We show that the combination of features derived from the chest CT volumes improve the AUC performance to 0.80 from the 0.52 obtained by using patients' clinical data alone. These approaches enable the automated extraction of clinically relevant features from chest CT volumes for risk stratification of COVID-19 patients.

Association of Public Health Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic With the Incidence of Infectious Conjunctivitis.

Importance: Infectious conjunctivitis is highly transmissible and a public health concern. While mitigation strategies have been successful on a local level, population-wide decreases in spread are rare. Objective: To evaluate whether internet search interest and emergency department visits for infectious conjunctivitis were associated with public health interventions adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: Internet search data from the US and emergency department data from a single academic center in the US were used in this study. Publicly available smartphone mobility data were temporally aligned to quantify social distancing. Internet search term trends for nonallergic conjunctivitis, corneal abrasions, and posterior vitreous detachments were obtained. Additionally, all patients who presented to a single emergency department from February 2015 to February 2021 were included in a review. Physician notes for emergency department visits at a single academic center with the same diagnoses were extracted. Causal inference was performed using a bayesian structural time-series model. Data were compared from before and after April 2020, when the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended members of the public wear masks, stay at least 6 feet from others who did not reside in the same home, avoid crowds, and quarantine if experiencing flulike symptoms or exposure to persons with COVID-19 symptoms. Exposures: Symptoms of or interest in conjunctivitis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcome and Measures: The hypothesis was that there would be a decrease in internet search interest and emergency department visits for infectious conjunctivitis after the adaptation of public health measures targeted to curb COVID-19. Results: A total of 1156 emergency department encounters with a diagnosis of conjunctivitis were noted from January 2015 to February 2021. Emergency department encounters for nonallergic conjunctivitis decreased by 37.3% (95% CI, -12.9% to -60.6%; P < .001). In contrast, encounters for corneal abrasion (1.1% [95% CI, -29.3% to 29.1%]; P = .47) and posterior vitreous detachments (7.9% [95% CI, -46.9% to 66.6%]; P = .39) remained stable after adjusting for total emergency department encounters. Search interest in conjunctivitis decreased by 34.2% (95% CI, -30.6% to -37.6%; P < .001) after widespread implementation of public health interventions to mitigate COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: Public health interventions, such as social distancing, increased emphasis on hygiene, and travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, were associated with decreased search interest in nonallergic conjunctivitis and conjunctivitis-associated emergency department encounters. Mobility data may provide novel metrics of social distancing. These data provide evidence of a sustained population-wide decrease in infectious conjunctivitis.

Endophthalmitis Rate in Immediately Sequential versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery within the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry Data.

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis after immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) using the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in the IRIS Registry who underwent cataract surgery from 2013 through 2018. METHODS: Patients who underwent cataract surgery were divided into 2 groups: (1) ISBCS and (2) DSBCS (second-eye surgery ≥1 day after the first-eye surgery) or unilateral surgery. Postoperative endophthalmitis was defined as endophthalmitis occurring within 4 weeks of surgery by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code and ICD code with additional clinical criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of postoperative endophthalmitis. RESULTS: Of 5 573 639 IRIS Registry patients who underwent cataract extraction, 165 609 underwent ISBCS, and 5 408 030 underwent DSBCS or unilateral surgery (3 695 440 DSBCS, 1 712 590 unilateral surgery only). A total of 3102 participants (0.056%) met study criteria of postoperative endophthalmitis with supporting clinical findings. The rates of endophthalmitis in either surgery eye between the 2 surgery groups were similar (0.059% in the ISBCS group vs. 0.056% in the DSBCS or unilateral group; P = 0.53). Although the incidence of endophthalmitis was slightly higher in the ISBCS group compared with the DSBCS or unilateral group, the odds ratio did not reach statistical significance (1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.31; P = 0.47) after adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance status, and comorbid eye disease. Seven cases of bilateral endophthalmitis with supporting clinical data in the DSBCS group and no cases in the ISBCS group were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of postoperative endophthalmitis was not statistically significantly different between patients who underwent ISBCS and DSBCS or unilateral cataract surgery.

Hospitalization and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral clades in COVID-19.

The COVID-19 epidemic of 2019-20 is due to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Following first case description in December, 2019 this virus has infected over 10 million individuals and resulted in at least 500,000 deaths world-wide. The virus is undergoing rapid mutation, with two major clades of sequence variants emerging. This study sought to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 sequence variants are associated with differing outcomes among COVID-19 patients in a single medical system. Whole genome SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequence was obtained from isolates collected from patients registered in the University of Washington Medicine health system between March 1 and April 15, 2020. Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of patients and their outcome data including their hospitalization and death were collected. Statistical and machine learning models were applied to determine if viral genetic variants were associated with specific outcomes of hospitalization or death. Full length SARS-CoV-2 sequence was obtained 190 subjects with clinical outcome data. 35 (18.4%) were hospitalized and 14 (7.4%) died from complications of infection. A total of 289 single nucleotide variants were identified. Clustering methods demonstrated two major viral clades, which could be readily distinguished by 12 polymorphisms in 5 genes. A trend toward higher rates of hospitalization of patients with Clade 2 infections was observed (p = 0.06, Fisher's exact). Machine learning models utilizing patient demographics and co-morbidities achieved area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.93 for predicting hospitalization. Addition of viral clade or sequence information did not significantly improve models for outcome prediction. In summary, SARS-CoV-2 shows substantial sequence diversity in a community-based sample. Two dominant clades of virus are in circulation. Among patients sufficiently ill to warrant testing for virus, no significant difference in outcomes of hospitalization or death could be discerned between clades in this sample. Major risk factors for hospitalization and death for either major clade of virus include patient age and comorbid conditions.

Outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral clades in COVID-19.

Background The COVID-19 epidemic of 2019-20 is due to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Following first case description in December, 2019 this virus has infected over 10 million individuals and resulted in at least 500,000 deaths world-wide. The virus is undergoing rapid mutation, with two major clades of sequence variants emerging. This study sought to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 sequence variants are associated with differing outcomes among COVID-19 patients in a single medical system. Methods Whole genome SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequence was obtained from isolates collected from patients registered in the University of Washington Medicine health system between March 1 and April 15, 2020. Demographic and baseline medical data along with outcomes of hospitalization and death were collected. Statistical and machine learning models were applied to determine if viral genetic variants were associated with specific outcomes of hospitalization or death. Findings Full length SARS-CoV-2 sequence was obtained 190 subjects with clinical outcome data. 35 (18.4%) were hospitalized and 14 (7.4%) died from complications of infection. A total of 289 single nucleotide variants were identified. Clustering methods demonstrated two major viral clades, which could be readily distinguished by 12 polymorphisms in 5 genes. A trend toward higher rates of hospitalization of patients with Clade 2 was observed (p=0.06). Machine learning models utilizing patient demographics and co-morbidities achieved area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.93 for predicting hospitalization. Addition of viral clade or sequence information did not significantly improve models for outcome prediction. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 shows substantial sequence diversity in a community-based sample. Two dominant clades of virus are in circulation. Among patients sufficiently ill to warrant testing for virus, no significant difference in outcomes of hospitalization or death could be discerned between clades in this sample. Major risk factors for hospitalization and death for either major clade of virus include patient age and comorbid conditions.