PurposeComputer vision syndrome (CVS) describes a group of eye and vision-related problems that result from prolonged digital device use. This study aims to assess the prevalence and associated factors of CVS among students during the lockdown resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA cross-sectional, online, questionnaire-based study performed among high school students in Thailand.ResultsA total of 2476 students, with mean age of 15.52±1.66 years, were included in this study. The mean number of hours of digital device use per day (10.53±2.99) increased during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before its advent (6.13±2.8). The mean number of hours of online learning was 7.03±2.06 hours per day during the pandemic. CVS was found in 70.1% of students, and its severity correlated with both the number of hours of online learning and the total number of hours of digital device usage (p<0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the factors associated with CVS included age ≤15 years (adjusted OR (AOR)=2.17), overall digital device usage >6 hours per day (AOR=1.91), online learning >5 hours per day (AOR=4.99), multiple digital device usage (AOR=2.15), refractive errors (AOR=2.89), presence of back pain (AOR=2.06) and presence of neck pain (AOR=2.36).ConclusionsThe number of hours of digital device usage increased during lockdown. Over 70% of children had CVS, whose associated factors, including hours of digital device usage, hours of online learning, ergonomics and refractive errors, should be adjusted to decrease the risk of acquiring this condition. Online learning will remain, along with CVS, after this pandemic, and we hope our research will be taken into account in remodelling our education system accordingly.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to cause significant medical quality enhancements and cost-saving improvements in ophthalmology. Although there has been a rapid growth of studies on AI in the recent years, real-world adoption of AI is still rare. One reason may be because the data derived from economic evaluations of AI in health care, which policy makers used for adopting new technology, have been fragmented and scarce. Most data on economics of AI in ophthalmology are from diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening. Few studies classified costs of AI software, which has been considered as a medical device, into direct medical costs. These costs of AI are composed of initial and maintenance costs. The initial costs may include investment in research and development, and costs for validation of different datasets. Meanwhile, the maintenance costs include costs for algorithms upgrade and hardware maintenance in the long run. The cost of AI should be balanced between manufacturing price and reimbursements since it may pose significant challenges and barriers to providers. Evidence from cost-effectiveness analyses showed that AI, either standalone or used with humans, was more cost-effective than manual DR screening. Notably, economic evaluation of AI for DR screening can be used as a model for AI to other ophthalmic diseases.

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.