[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.216.242. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 4,815
Citations 0
Editorial
November 29, 2016

Artificial Intelligence With Deep Learning Technology Looks Into Diabetic Retinopathy Screening

Author Affiliations
  • 1Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore
  • 2Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  • 3Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 4Editor, JAMA Ophthalmology
JAMA. Published online November 29, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17563

Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of vision loss in the United States and globally, particularly among working-aged individuals. Diabetic retinopathy meets all the criteria for screening: first, the condition (diabetic retinopathy) is an important public health care problem; second, the epidemiology and natural history of the condition, including development from asymptomatic latent to severe disease, are adequately understood; third, the screening test (retinal photography) is simple, safe, validated, and acceptable; and fourth, an effective treatment (intravitreous injections of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor or laser therapy for severe diabetic retinopathy or diabetic macular edema [DME]) is available for patients identified through early detection. Diabetic retinopathy screening has long been recommended by the American Diabetes Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and many international societies.

However, if this is true, why is diabetic retinopathy screening not widely implemented and not routinely practiced? A fundamental problem is the potential number of patients with the disease and the necessary resources. Estimates from the 2005-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicate that diabetic retinopathy affects at least 5 million people older than 40 years in the United States,1 and estimates from the World Health Organization suggest that diabetic retinopathy affects more than 100 million people globally.2 In the United States alone, if diabetic retinopathy screening were made universal, it is estimated that the annual number of retinal images requiring evaluation would be 32 million per year.3

Deep learning is a new branch of machine learning technology under the broad term of artificial intelligence. Google and other technology companies (eg, Facebook, Apple) have been using deep learning for big data analysis for years to predict how individuals search the internet, where they like to travel, what they like to purchase, what is their favorite food, and who are their potential friends. Deep learning has substantial potential for health care and may allow the identification of which patients are likely to develop a particular disease and, among those with a particular condition, which patients need to be seen more frequently and perhaps treated more aggressively and determination of what specific treatments may be most appropriate for these patients (ie, “precision medicine”).

As a natural extension of the use of artificial intelligence from mainstream daily life to medicine, Gulshan and colleagues4 in this issue of JAMA report the use of deep learning technology for diabetic retinopathy screening. Using large data sets of images (n = 128 175) to first “train” an algorithm, then using 2 separate data sets (n = 9963 images and n = 1748 images) to “test” this algorithm, the authors showed that this novel diabetic retinopathy screening software based on deep learning techniques had an 87% to 90% sensitivity, 98% specificity, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.99 for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy, which was defined as moderate or worse diabetic retinopathy or referable DME. Based on these results of high sensitivity and high specificity for detecting diabetic retinopathy, the authors suggest that future research involving diabetic retinopathy screening software developed from deep learning algorithms is necessary to determine the feasibility of applying this algorithm in diabetic retinopathy screening programs and whether the use of the algorithm ultimately could lead to improved patient care and outcomes.

The strengths of the study are clear, including the cutting-edge technology that was applied, a large number of retinal image data sets, and performance indicators (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) that are substantially better than what screening guidelines would recommend (typically >80% sensitivity and specificity). However, there are several challenges to immediate adoption of the software for clinical translation and utility in diabetic retinopathy screening programs.

First, there are limitations in the present study, some of which the authors have appropriately acknowledged. For example, the study used a complicated definition of a gold standard (a majority decision of a panel of US board-certified ophthalmologists) to develop and validate their algorithm. This may compare unfavorably with standardized, centralized assessment of images usually used, for example, in large clinical trials (eg, fundus photographs evaluated in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study,5 in which images were graded centrally in a “reading center”) or using more precise methods to detect DME (eg, optical coherence tomography6). If Gulshan et al had used such a reading center or optical coherence tomography as their gold standard, would similar outcomes have been obtained?

Another limitation is that even though the authors concentrated their report on the performance of referable diabetic retinopathy (moderate or worse diabetic retinopathy and DME), the authors did not provide comparable data on “sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy” (severe diabetic retinopathy or worse diabetic retinopathy or DME). These most severe cases typically require urgent referral and clinical care and ideally should not be missed by any screening program (whether human or software). It would be important to evaluate the performance of the algorithm for detecting “sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy ” and in particular determine if the software has an extremely high-sensitivity outcome. Such an analysis may not be possible in the current study because the number of images with severe diabetic retinopathy or worse in the validation data set was fewer than 200 photographs.

In addition, as the authors acknowledged, the software does not detect other important eye conditions, including signs of glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration. Most diabetic retinopathy screening programs currently in operation using human assessment (eg, by the Joslin Network7 or the United Kingdom’s National Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program) include these conditions. It is therefore difficult to know how the current software can safely “replace” human graders in the existing diabetic retinopathy screening programs at this time.

An important second challenge to adoption of this algorithm is that software should be validated further in larger patient cohorts under different settings and conditions. The performance of a screening software varies with the prevalence of the condition being screened. In this case, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy varies and is low in some communities and ethnic groups and higher in others (eg, Hispanics, African Americans). It is important to understand the performance characteristics in these populations.

A third challenge is a practical one: how does such software “fit” in a clinical system? Should the software be incorporated into retinal cameras and thus used at the point of care by ophthalmologists, optometrists, or other health care professionals? If so, would an ophthalmologist or optometrist simply trust the results without also viewing the image? Alternatively, should centralized diabetic retinopathy reading centers be established in the United States and, more importantly, in low-resource settings where few ophthalmologists are available to care for all of the patients with diabetes? Such centralized diabetic retinopathy reading centers would have retinal images obtained at remote sites and have images transmitted to the center, and the software could be utilized to perform an initial screen with those that require further confirmation referred to a human assessor. Such global public health projects could have substantial benefit and could perhaps be funded by industry or with public health resources.

A fourth critical challenge relates to a major mind-set shift in how clinicians and patients entrust clinical care to machines. Because deep learning uses millions of image features that are most predictive for referable diabetic retinopathy rather than explicitly detecting clinical features physicians are familiar with (eg, microaneurysms, hard exudates), both physicians and patients have to trust a “black box” to determine a disease state. It is unclear exactly what the machine “sees.” In this study, many variables could have influenced how a machine defines referable diabetic retinopathy; these include heterogeneous populations of different race (with different background color of the retina), variability in pupil dilation, and possibly differences in cataract severity and media opacities. A valid question is whether the machine assigned referable diabetic retinopathy in eyes that had poorer pupil dilation and more severe cataract (because people with diabetic retinopathy are more likely to have these features) rather than based on the severity of the clinical diabetic retinopathy? Understanding what the machine “thinks” and “sees” will more likely convince physicians and patients to adopt such a system.

The study by Gulshan and colleagues truly represents the brave new world in medicine. Rather than simply a device that monitors various physiological characteristics, an increasingly common occurrence in modern medicine, deep machine learning provides a thoughtful analysis of data. The push of artificial intelligence into the health care arena is timely, welcomed, and much needed, as all available resources will be required to address the most pressing health care problems globally in an efficient, timely, and cost-effective manner.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Neil M. Bressler, MD, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N Wolfe St, Maumenee 752, Baltimore, MD 21287-9277 (nbressler@jhmi.edu).

Published Online: November 29, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17563

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Wong reports a patent on automated diabetic retinopathy screening software and receipt of consulting fees and advisory board membership for Abbott, Novartis, Pfizer, Allergan, and Bayer. Dr Bressler reports a patent on a system and method for automated detection of age-related macular degeneration and other retinal abnormalities. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by unrestricted grants to the Johns Hopkins University.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Johns Hopkins University had no role in the preparation or approval of the manuscript or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Varma  R, Bressler  NM, Doan  QV,  et al.  Prevalence of and risk factors for diabetic macular edema in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(11):1334-1340.
PubMedArticle
2.
Yau  JW, Rogers  SL, Kawasaki  R,  et al; Meta-Analysis for Eye Disease (META-EYE) Study Group.  Global prevalence and major risk factors of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(3):556-564.
PubMedArticle
3.
Abramoff  MD, Niemeijer  M, Russell  SR.  Automated detection of diabetic retinopathy: barriers to translation into clinical practice. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2010;7(2):287-296.
PubMedArticle
4.
Gulshan  V, Peng  L, Coram  M,  et al.  Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17216
5.
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group.  Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs—an extension of the modified Airlie House classification: ETDRS report number 10. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(5)(suppl):786-806.
PubMedArticle
6.
Wang  YT, Tadarati  M, Wolfson  Y, Bressler  SB, Bressler  NM.  Comparison of prevalence of diabetic macular edema based on monocular fundus photography vs optical coherence tomography. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(2):222-228.
PubMedArticle
7.
Walton  OB  IV, Garoon  RB, Weng  CY,  et al.  Evaluation of automated teleretinal screening program for diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(2):204-209.
PubMedArticle
×