Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Predicting Risk of Developing Diabetic Retinopathy using Deep Learning (2008.04370v1)

Published 10 Aug 2020 in eess.IV and cs.CV

Abstract: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is instrumental in preventing blindness, but faces a scaling challenge as the number of diabetic patients rises. Risk stratification for the development of DR may help optimize screening intervals to reduce costs while improving vision-related outcomes. We created and validated two versions of a deep learning system (DLS) to predict the development of mild-or-worse ("Mild+") DR in diabetic patients undergoing DR screening. The two versions used either three-fields or a single field of color fundus photographs (CFPs) as input. The training set was derived from 575,431 eyes, of which 28,899 had known 2-year outcome, and the remaining were used to augment the training process via multi-task learning. Validation was performed on both an internal validation set (set A; 7,976 eyes; 3,678 with known outcome) and an external validation set (set B; 4,762 eyes; 2,345 with known outcome). For predicting 2-year development of DR, the 3-field DLS had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95%CI, 0.78-0.81) on validation set A. On validation set B (which contained only a single field), the 1-field DLS's AUC was 0.70 (95%CI, 0.67-0.74). The DLS was prognostic even after adjusting for available risk factors (p<0.001). When added to the risk factors, the 3-field DLS improved the AUC from 0.72 (95%CI, 0.68-0.76) to 0.81 (95%CI, 0.77-0.84) in validation set A, and the 1-field DLS improved the AUC from 0.62 (95%CI, 0.58-0.66) to 0.71 (95%CI, 0.68-0.75) in validation set B. The DLSs in this study identified prognostic information for DR development from CFPs. This information is independent of and more informative than the available risk factors.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (16)
  1. Ashish Bora (4 papers)
  2. Siva Balasubramanian (4 papers)
  3. Boris Babenko (9 papers)
  4. Sunny Virmani (3 papers)
  5. Subhashini Venugopalan (35 papers)
  6. Akinori Mitani (6 papers)
  7. Guilherme de Oliveira Marinho (2 papers)
  8. Jorge Cuadros (6 papers)
  9. Paisan Ruamviboonsuk (4 papers)
  10. Greg S Corrado (41 papers)
  11. Lily Peng (17 papers)
  12. Dale R Webster (23 papers)
  13. Avinash V Varadarajan (11 papers)
  14. Naama Hammel (9 papers)
  15. Yun Liu (213 papers)
  16. Pinal Bavishi (4 papers)
Citations (130)