Author(s): Keenan TDL, Chen Q, Peng Y, Domalpally A, Agrón E, Hwang CK, Thavikulwat AT, Lee DH, Li D, Wong WT, Lu Z, Chew EY. Deep learning automated detection of reticular pseudodrusen from fundus autofluorescence images or color fundus photographs in AREDS2. Ophthalmology. 2020 Dec;127(12):1674-1687. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.05.036. Epub 2020 May 21. PMID 32447042
Journal: Ophthalmology, Volume 127, Issue 12, Dec 2020
PURPOSE To develop deep learning models for detecting reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) using fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images or, alternatively, color fundus photographs (CFP) in the context of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
DESIGN Application of deep learning models to the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) dataset.
PARTICIPANTS FAF and CFP images (n = 11 535) from 2450 AREDS2 participants. Gold standard labels from reading center grading of the FAF images were transferred to the corresponding CFP images.
METHODS A deep learning model was trained to detect RPD in eyes with intermediate to late AMD using FAF images (FAF model). Using label transfer from FAF to CFP images, a deep learning model was trained to detect RPD from CFP (CFP model). Performance was compared with 4 ophthalmologists using a random subset from the full test set.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), κ value, accuracy, and F1 score.
RESULTS The FAF model had an AUC of 0.939 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.927-0.950), a κ value of 0.718 (95% CI, 0.685-0.751), and accuracy of 0.899 (95% CI, 0.887-0.911). The CFP model showed equivalent values of 0.832 (95% CI, 0.812-0.851), 0.470 (95% CI, 0.426-0.511), and 0.809 (95% CI, 0.793-0.825), respectively. The FAF model demonstrated superior performance to 4 ophthalmologists, showing a higher κ value of 0.789 (95% CI, 0.675-0.875) versus a range of 0.367 to 0.756 and higher accuracy of 0.937 (95% CI, 0.907-0.963) versus a range of 0.696 to 0.933. The CFP model demonstrated substantially superior performance to 4 ophthalmologists, showing a higher κ value of 0.471 (95% CI, 0.330-0.606) versus a range of 0.105 to 0.180 and higher accuracy of 0.844 (95% CI, 0.798-0.886) versus a range of 0.717 to 0.814.
CONCLUSIONS Deep learning-enabled automated detection of RPD presence from FAF images achieved a high level of accuracy, equal or superior to that of ophthalmologists. Automated RPD detection using CFP achieved a lower accuracy that still surpassed that of ophthalmologists. Deep learning models can assist, and even augment, the detection of this clinically important AMD-associated lesion.