Deep learning algorithms have been used to detect diabetic retinopathy (DR) with specialist-level accuracy. This study aims to validate one such algorithm on a large-scale clinical population, and compare the algorithm performance with that of human graders. A total of 25,326 gradable retinal images of patients with diabetes from the community-based, nationwide screening program of DR in Thailand were analyzed for DR severity and referable diabetic macular edema (DME). Grades adjudicated by a panel of international retinal specialists served as the reference standard. Relative to human graders, for detecting referable DR (moderate NPDR or worse), the deep learning algorithm had significantly higher sensitivity (0.97 vs. 0.74, p < 0.001), and a slightly lower specificity (0.96 vs. 0.98, p < 0.001). Higher sensitivity of the algorithm was also observed for each of the categories of severe or worse NPDR, PDR, and DME ( p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The quadratic-weighted kappa for determination of DR severity levels by the algorithm and human graders was 0.85 and 0.78 respectively ( p < 0.001 for the difference). Across different severity levels of DR for determining referable disease, deep learning significantly reduced the false negative rate (by 23%) at the cost of slightly higher false positive rates (2%). Deep learning algorithms may serve as a valuable tool for DR screening.

Center-involved diabetic macular edema (ci-DME) is a major cause of vision loss. Although the gold standard for diagnosis involves 3D imaging, 2D imaging by fundus photography is usually used in screening settings, resulting in high false-positive and false-negative calls. To address this, we train a deep learning model to predict ci-DME from fundus photographs, with an ROC-AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.91), corresponding to 85% sensitivity at 80% specificity. In comparison, retinal specialists have similar sensitivities (82-85%), but only half the specificity (45-50%, p < 0.001). Our model can also detect the presence of intraretinal fluid (AUC: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and subretinal fluid (AUC 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.91). Using deep learning to make predictions via simple 2D images without sophisticated 3Dimaging equipment and with better than specialist performance, has broad relevance to many other applications in medical imaging.

Objective. To evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening via deep learning (DL) and trained human graders (HG) in a longitudinal cohort, as case spectrum shifts based on treatment referral and new-onset DR. Methods. We randomly selected patients with diabetes screened twice, two years apart within a nationwide screening program. The reference standard was established via adjudication by retina specialists. Each patient’s color fundus photographs were graded, and a patient was considered as having sight-threatening DR (STDR) if the worse eye had severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or diabetic macular edema. We compared DR screening via two modalities: DL and HG. For each modality, we simulated treatment referral by excluding patients with detected STDR from the second screening using that modality. Results. There were 5,738 patients (12.3% STDR) in the first screening. DL and HG captured different numbers of STDR cases, and after simulated referral and excluding ungradable cases, 4,148 and 4,263 patients remained in the second screening, respectively. The STDR prevalence at the second screening was 5.1% and 6.8% for DL- and HG-based screening, respectively. Along with the prevalence decrease, the sensitivity for both modalities decreased from the first to the second screening (DL: from 95% to 90%, p = 0.008 ; HG: from 74% to 57%, p < 0.001 ). At both the first and second screenings, the rate of false negatives for the DL was a fifth that of HG (0.5-0.6% vs. 2.9-3.2%). Conclusion. On 2-year longitudinal follow-up of a DR screening cohort, STDR prevalence decreased for both DL- and HG-based screening. Follow-up screenings in longitudinal DR screening can be more difficult and induce lower sensitivity for both DL and HG, though the false negative rate was substantially lower for DL. Our data may be useful for health-economics analyses of longitudinal screening settings.