Cited by 93Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal and Macular Surgery

Retinal specialist versus artificial intelligence detection of retinal fluid from OCT

Open access
Keenan, Tiarnan D.L., Clemons, Traci E., Domalpally, Amitha, Elman, Michael J., Havilio, Moshe, Agrón, Elvira, Benyamini, Gidi, Chew, Emily Y.·2021·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the performance of retinal specialists in detecting retinal fluid presence in spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT) scans from eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and compare performance with an artificial intelligence algorithm.Design Prospective comparison of retinal fluid grades from human retinal specialists and the Notal OCT Analyzer (NOA) on SD-OCT scans from 2 common devices.Participants A total of 1127 eyes of 651 Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 10-year Follow-On Study (AREDS2-10Y) participants with SD-OCT scans graded by reading center graders (as the ground truth).Methods The AREDS2-10Y investigators graded each SD-OCT scan for the presence/absence of intraretinal and subretinal fluid. Separately, the same scans were graded by the NOA.Main outcome measures Accuracy (primary), sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score.Results Of the 1127 eyes, retinal fluid was present in 32.8%. For detecting retinal fluid, the investigators had an accuracy of 0.805 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.780-0.828), a sensitivity of 0.468 (95% CI, 0.416-0.520), a specificity of 0.970 (95% CI, 0.955-0.981). The NOA metrics were 0.851 (95% CI, 0.829-0.871), 0.822 (95% CI, 0.779-0.859), 0.865 (95% CI, 0.839-0.889), respectively. For detecting intraretinal fluid, the investigator metrics were 0.815 (95% CI, 0.792-0.837), 0.403 (95% CI, 0.349-0.459), and 0.978 (95% CI, 0.966-0.987); the NOA metrics were 0.877 (95% CI, 0.857-0.896), 0.763 (95% CI, 0.713-0.808), and 0.922 (95% CI, 0.902-0.940), respectively. For detecting subretinal fluid, the investigator metrics were 0.946 (95% CI, 0.931-0.958), 0.583 (95% CI, 0.471-0.690), and 0.973 (95% CI, 0.962-0.982); the NOA metrics were 0.863 (95% CI, 0.842-0.882), 0.940 (95% CI, 0.867-0.980), and 0.857 (95% CI, 0.835-0.877), respectively.Conclusions In this large and challenging sample of SD-OCT scans obtained with 2 common devices, retinal specialists had imperfect accuracy and low sensitivity in detecting retinal fluid. This was particularly true for intraretinal fluid and difficult cases (with lower fluid volumes appearing on fewer B-scans). Artificial intelligence-based detection achieved a higher level of accuracy. This software tool could assist physicians in detecting retinal fluid, which is important for diagnostic, re-treatment, and prognostic tasks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.038

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keenan, T. D. L., Clemons, T. E., Domalpally, A., Elman, M. J., Havilio, M., Agrón, E., Benyamini, G., & Chew, E. Y.
Affiliations
  • Emmes (United States) (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Elman Retina Group (US)
  • Notal Vision (Israel) (IL)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
128
Issue
1
Pages
100-109
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046617692
Cited by
93
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health
  • Department of Health and Human Services
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal and Macular Surgery
Keywords
age-related macular degeneration, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, artificial intelligence, intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, automated grading, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Ophthalmologists, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Prospective Studies, Time Factors, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Subretinal Fluid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review