RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate mydriatic handheld retinal imaging performance assessed by point-of-care (POC) artificial intelligence (AI) as compared with retinal image graders at a centralized reading center (RC) in identifying diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Prospective, comparative study. Subjects: Five thousand five hundred eighty-five eyes from 2793 adult patients with diabetes. Methods: Point-of-care AI assessment of disc and macular handheld retinal images was compared with RC evaluation of validated 5-field handheld retinal images (disc, macula, superior, inferior, and temporal) in identifying referable DR (refDR; defined as moderate nonproliferative DR [NPDR], or worse, or any level of DME) and vision-threatening DR (vtDR; defined as severe NPDR or worse, or any level of center-involving DME [ciDME]). Reading center evaluation of the 5-field images followed the international DR/DME classification. Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) for ungradable images, refDR, and vtDR were calculated. Main Outcome Measures: Agreement for DR and DME; SN and SP for refDR, vtDR, and ungradable images. Results: Diabetic retinopathy severity by RC evaluation: no DR, 67.3%; mild NPDR, 9.7%; moderate NPDR, 8.6%; severe NPDR, 4.8%; proliferative DR, 3.8%; and ungradable, 5.8%. Diabetic macular edema severity by RC evaluation was as follows: no DME (80.4%), non-ciDME (7.7%), ciDME (4.4%), and ungradable (7.5%). Referable DR was present in 25.3% and vtDR was present in 17.5% of eyes. Images were ungradable for DR or DME in 7.5% by RC evaluation and 15.4% by AI. There was substantial agreement between AI and RC for refDR (κ = 0.66) and moderate agreement for vtDR (κ = 0.54). The SN/SP of AI grading compared with RC evaluation was 0.86/0.86 for refDR and 0.92/0.80 for vtDR. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that POC AI following a defined handheld retinal imaging protocol at the time of imaging has SN and SP for refDR that meets the current United States Food and Drug Administration thresholds of 85% and 82.5%, but not for vtDR. Integrating AI at the POC could substantially reduce centralized RC burden and speed information delivery to the patient, allowing more prompt eye care referral. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare 2-field (2F) and 5-field (5F) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in a community-based DR screening program (DRSP). METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional diagnostic study, evaluating images of 805 eyes from 407 consecutive patients with diabetes acquired from a community-based DRSP. Mydriatic standardized 5F imaging (macula, disc, superior, inferior, temporal) with handheld retinal camera was performed. 2F (disc, macula), and 5F images were independently assessed using the International DR classification at a centralized reading center. Simple (K) and weighted (Kw) kappa statistics were calculated for DR. Sensitivity and specificity for referable DR ([refDR] moderate nonproliferative DR [NPDR] or worse) and vision-threatening DR ([vtDR] severe NPDR or worse) for 2F compared to 5F imaging were calculated. RESULTS: Distribution of DR severity by 2F/5F images (%): no DR 66.0/61.7, mild NPDR 10.7/14.4, moderate NPDR 7.9/8.1, severe NPDR 3.3/5.6, proliferative DR 5.6/4.6, ungradable 6.5/5.6. Exact agreement of DR grading between 2F and 5F was 81.7%, within 1-step 97.1% (K = 0.64, Kw = 0.78). Sensitivity/specificity for 2F compared 5F was refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98. The ungradable images rate with 2F was 16.1% higher than with 5F (6.5 vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mydriatic 2F and 5F handheld imaging have substantial agreement in assessing severity of DR. However, the use of mydriatic 2F handheld imaging only meets the minimum standards for sensitivity and specificity for refDR but not for vtDR. When using handheld cameras, the addition of peripheral fields in 5F imaging further refines the referral approach by decreasing ungradable rate and increasing sensitivity for vtDR.
