Real-World External Evaluation of an OCT Image Analysis System (AI-CO) in Relation to Humphrey Visual Field Mean Deviation
KORA, Y.; Kora, H.; Kora, T.
Show abstract
Purpose: To externally evaluate the real-world performance of a commercially implemented artificial intelligence system that analyzes OCT image data and provides numerical and grayscale reference outputs, by characterizing the association and numerical relationship between AI-CO output and Humphrey visual field mean deviation (MD) in routine clinical practice. Study Design: Retrospective, single-center observational study. Methods: This study included 819 eyes of 424 patients who underwent AI-CO analysis and Humphrey 24-2F or 30-2 visual field testing within 1 year. The 24-2F and 30-2 groups comprised 343 and 476 eyes, respectively. Because the AI-CO all value, corresponding to the index labeled "peripheral" in the Japanese user interface, is a unitless index, its numerical relationship with Humphrey MD was explored using Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and Passing-Bablok regression. Linearity was assessed using the original cumulative sum (CUSUM) procedure described by Passing and Bablok. Results: The AI-CO all value was strongly correlated with Humphrey MD in both the 24-2F (r = 0.836) and 30-2 (r = 0.854) groups (both P < 0.001). In Bland-Altman analysis, the mean difference (AI-CO all minus Humphrey MD) and 95% limits of agreement were -1.23 (-7.23 to 4.77) in the 24-2F group and -1.44 (-7.96 to 5.08) in the 30-2 group. In both groups, the 95% confidence interval for the Passing-Bablok slope included 1, whereas that for the intercept excluded 0. The original CUSUM procedure did not reject linearity in the overall cohort, the 24-2F group, or the 30-2 group (P = 0.086, 0.091, and 0.145, respectively). Conclusions: In this independent real-world external evaluation of a clinically implemented system, AI-CO all was strongly correlated with Humphrey MD, and linearity of their numerical relationship was not rejected. However, its unitless output was lower on average and showed substantial eye-level variability. AI-CO may therefore provide complementary structural-functional information in routine care but should not be interpreted as interchangeable with standard automated perimetry.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Visual field evaluation using Zippy Adaptive Threshold Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast in patients with glaucoma and healthy individuals 96%
- Relating Standardized Automated Perimetry Performed with Stimulus Sizes III and V in Eyes With Field Loss due to Glaucoma and NAION 96%
- Visible light optical coherence tomography of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer reflectivity in glaucoma 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prediction of the ectasia screening index from raw Casia2 volume data for keratoconus identification by using convolutional neural networks 96%
- Development of the Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements Anterior Segment OCT extension reporting guidelines: APOSTEL-AS 95%
- Glaucoma Detection and Staging from Visual Field Images using Machine Learning Techniques 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated Expert-level Scleral Spur Detection and Quantitative Biometric Analysis on the ANTERION Anterior Segment OCT System 95%
- Autonomous Screening for Laser Photocoagulation in Fundus Images Using Deep Learning 95%
- Evaluation of the Nallasamy Formula: A Stacking Ensemble Machine Learning Method for Refraction Prediction in Cataract Surgery 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated vision screening of children using a mobile graphic device 94%
- Evaluation of OCT biomarker changes in treatment-naive neovascular AMD using a deep semantic segmentation algorithm 93%
- An Open-Source Dataset Of Anti-Vegf Therapy In Diabetic Macular Oedema Patients Over Four Years & Their Visual Outcomes 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.