CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,014Retinal Imaging and AnalysisOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A foundation model for generalizable disease detection from retinal images

Open access
Zhou, Yukun, Chia, Mark A., Wagner, Siegfried K., Ayhan, Murat S., Williamson, Dominic J., Struyven, Robbert R., Liu, Timing, Xu, Moucheng, Lozano, Mateo G., Woodward-Court, Peter, Kihara, Yuka, UK Biobank Eye & Vision Consortium, Allen, Naomi, Gallacher, John E. J., Littlejohns, Thomas, Aslam, Tariq, Bishop, Paul, Black, Graeme, Sergouniotis, Panagiotis, Atan, Denize, Dick, Andrew D., Williams, Cathy, Barman, Sarah, Barrett, Jenny H., Mackie, Sarah, Braithwaite, Tasanee, Carare, Roxana O., Ennis, Sarah, Gibson, Jane, Lotery, Andrew J., Self, Jay, Chakravarthy, Usha, Hogg, Ruth E., Paterson, Euan, Woodside, Jayne, Peto, Tunde, Mckay, Gareth, Mcguinness, Bernadette, Foster, Paul J., Balaskas, Konstantinos, Khawaja, Anthony P., Pontikos, Nikolas, Rahi, Jugnoo S., Lascaratos, Gerassimos, Patel, Praveen J., Chan, Michelle, Chua, Sharon Y. L., Day, Alexander, Desai, Parul, Egan, Cathy, Fruttiger, Marcus, Garway-Heath, David F., Hardcastle, Alison, Khaw, Sir Peng T., Moore, Tony, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Strouthidis, Nicholas, Thomas, Dhanes, Tufail, Adnan, Viswanathan, Ananth C., Dhillon, Bal, Macgillivray, Tom, Sudlow, Cathie, Vitart, Veronique, Doney, Alexander, Trucco, Emanuele, Guggeinheim, Jeremy A., Morgan, James E., Hammond, Chris J., Williams, Katie, Hysi, Pirro, Harding, Simon P., Zheng, Yalin, Luben, Robert, Luthert, Phil, Sun, Zihan, McKibbin, Martin, O’Sullivan, Eoin, Oram, Richard, Weedon, Mike, Owen, Chris G., Rudnicka, Alicja R., Sattar, Naveed, Steel, David, Stratton, Irene, Tapp, Robyn, Yates, Max M., Petzold, Axel, Madhusudhan, Savita, Altmann, Andre, Lee, Aaron Y., Topol, Eric J., Denniston, Alastair K., Alexander, Daniel C., Keane, Pearse A.·2023·Nature
DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06555-xPMC PMC10550819
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) offers great potential for recognizing signs of health conditions in retinal images and expediting the diagnosis of eye diseases and systemic disorders 1. However, the development of AI models requires substantial annotation and models are usually task-specific with limited generalizability to different clinical applications 2. Here, we present RETFound, a foundation model for retinal images that learns generalizable representations from unlabelled retinal images and provides a basis for label-efficient model adaptation in several applications. Specifically, RETFound is trained on 1.6 million unlabelled retinal images by means of self-supervised learning and then adapted to disease detection tasks with explicit labels. We show that adapted RETFound consistently outperforms several comparison models in the diagnosis and prognosis of sight-threatening eye diseases, as well as incident prediction of complex systemic disorders such as heart failure and myocardial infarction with fewer labelled data. RETFound provides a generalizable solution to improve model performance and alleviate the annotation workload of experts to enable broad clinical AI applications from retinal imaging.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41586-023-06555-x

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Schematic of development and evaluation of the foundation models (RETFound). Stage one constructs RETFound by means of SSL, using CFP and OCT from MEH-MIDAS and public datasets. Stage two adapts RETFound to downstream tasks by means of supervised learning for internal and external evaluation.
Fig. 1 Schematic of development and evaluation of the foundation models (RETFound). Stage one constructs RETFound by means of SSL, using CFP and OCT from MEH-MIDAS and public datasets. Stage two adapts RETFound to downstream tasks by means of supervised learning for internal and external evaluation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Performance on ocular disease diagnostic classification. a, Internal evaluation. Models are adapted to each dataset by fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data in the tasks of diagnosing ocular diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. The disease category and dataset characteristics are listed in Supplementary Table 1. b, External evaluation. Models are fine-tuned on one diabetic retinopathy dataset and externally evaluated on the others. c, Performance on ocular disease prognosis. The models are fine-tuned to predict the conversion of fellow eye to wet-AMD in 1 year and evaluated internally. RETFound performs best in all tasks. For each task, we trained the model with five different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get five replicas. We derived the statistics with the five replicas. The error bars show 95% CI and the bar centre represents the mean value of the AUROC. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check whether statistically significant differences exist. P value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Fig. 2 Performance on ocular disease diagnostic classification. a, Internal evaluation. Models are adapted to each dataset by fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data in the tasks of diagnosing ocular diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. The disease category and dataset characteristics are listed in Supplementary Table 1. b, External evaluation. Models are fine-tuned on one diabetic retinopathy dataset and externally evaluated on the others. c, Performance on ocular disease prognosis. The models are fine-tuned to predict the conversion of fellow eye to wet-AMD in 1 year and evaluated internally. RETFound performs best in all tasks. For each task, we trained the model with five different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get five replicas. We derived the statistics with the five replicas. The error bars show 95% CI and the bar centre represents the mean value of the AUROC. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check whether statistically significant differences exist. P value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Performance on 3-year incidence prediction of systemic diseases with retinal images. a, Internal evaluation. Models are adapted to curated datasets from MEH-AlzEye by fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data. b, External evaluation. Models are fine-tuned on MEH-AlzEye and externally evaluated on the UK Biobank. Data for internal and external evaluation are described in Supplementary Table 2. Although the overall performances are not high due to the difficulty of tasks, RETFound achieved significantly higher AUROC in all internal evaluations and most external evaluations. For each task, we trained the model with five different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get five replicas. We derived the statistics with the five replicas. The error bars show 95% CI and the bar centre represents the mean value of the AUROC. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check whether statistically significant differences exist. P value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Fig. 3 Performance on 3-year incidence prediction of systemic diseases with retinal images. a, Internal evaluation. Models are adapted to curated datasets from MEH-AlzEye by fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data. b, External evaluation. Models are fine-tuned on MEH-AlzEye and externally evaluated on the UK Biobank. Data for internal and external evaluation are described in Supplementary Table 2. Although the overall performances are not high due to the difficulty of tasks, RETFound achieved significantly higher AUROC in all internal evaluations and most external evaluations. For each task, we trained the model with five different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get five replicas. We derived the statistics with the five replicas. The error bars show 95% CI and the bar centre represents the mean value of the AUROC. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check whether statistically significant differences exist. P value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Label efficiency in exemplary applications. Label efficiency measures the performance with different fractions of training data to understand the amount of data required to achieve a target performance level. The dashed grey lines highlight the difference in training data between RETFound and the most competitive comparison model. RETFound performs better than the comparison groups with 10% of training data in 3-year incidence prediction of heart failure and myocardial infarction with modality of CFP and comparable to other groups with 45% of data in diabetic retinopathy MESSIDOR-2 and 50% of data on IDRID. The 95% CI of AUROC are plotted in colour bands and the centre points of the bands indicate the mean value of AUROC.
Fig. 4 Label efficiency in exemplary applications. Label efficiency measures the performance with different fractions of training data to understand the amount of data required to achieve a target performance level. The dashed grey lines highlight the difference in training data between RETFound and the most competitive comparison model. RETFound performs better than the comparison groups with 10% of training data in 3-year incidence prediction of heart failure and myocardial infarction with modality of CFP and comparable to other groups with 45% of data in diabetic retinopathy MESSIDOR-2 and 50% of data on IDRID. The 95% CI of AUROC are plotted in colour bands and the centre points of the bands indicate the mean value of AUROC.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Comparison of different SSL strategies in RETFound framework on exemplar applications. We show AUROC of predicting diabetic retinopathy, ischaemic stroke and heart failure by the models pretrained with different SSL strategies, including the masked autoencoder (MAE), SwAV, SimCLR, MoCo-v3 and DINO. The data for systemic disease tasks come from the MEH-AlzEye dataset. RETFound with MAE achieved significantly higher AUROC in most tasks. The corresponding quantitative results for the contrastive SSL approaches are listed in Supplementary Table 4. For each task, we trained the model with five different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get five replicas. We derived the statistics with the five replicas. The error bars show 95% CI and the bar centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check whether statistically significant differences exist. P value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Fig. 5 Comparison of different SSL strategies in RETFound framework on exemplar applications. We show AUROC of predicting diabetic retinopathy, ischaemic stroke and heart failure by the models pretrained with different SSL strategies, including the masked autoencoder (MAE), SwAV, SimCLR, MoCo-v3 and DINO. The data for systemic disease tasks come from the MEH-AlzEye dataset. RETFound with MAE achieved significantly higher AUROC in most tasks. The corresponding quantitative results for the contrastive SSL approaches are listed in Supplementary Table 4. For each task, we trained the model with five different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get five replicas. We derived the statistics with the five replicas. The error bars show 95% CI and the bar centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check whether statistically significant differences exist. P value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 1 Illustration of training pipeline of RETFound and comparison baselines. The compared baselines include SL-ImageNet, SSL-ImageNet, and SSL-Retinal. SL-ImageNet trains the model via supervised learning on ImageNet-21k (14 million images and categorical labels); SSL-ImageNet trains the model on ImageNet-1k (1.4 million images) via SSL; SSL-Retinal trains the model on retinal images via SSL from scratch; RETFound trains the model on retinal images via SSL from the weights of SSL-ImageNet. *kayak picture is used to illustrate the method pipeline.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Illustration of training pipeline of RETFound and comparison baselines. The compared baselines include SL-ImageNet, SSL-ImageNet, and SSL-Retinal. SL-ImageNet trains the model via supervised learning on ImageNet-21k (14 million images and categorical labels); SSL-ImageNet trains the model on ImageNet-1k (1.4 million images) via SSL; SSL-Retinal trains the model on retinal images via SSL from scratch; RETFound trains the model on retinal images via SSL from the weights of SSL-ImageNet. *kayak picture is used to illustrate the method pipeline.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 2 Performance (AUPR) on ocular disease diagnostic classification. a, internal evaluation, models are adapted to each dataset via fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data. The dataset details are listed in Supplementary Table 1. b, external evaluation, models are fine-tuned on one diabetic retinopathy dataset and externally evaluated on the others. c, performance on ocular disease prognosis. The models are fine-tuned to predict the conversion of fellow eye to wet-AMD in 1 year and evaluated internally. For each task, we trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Performance (AUPR) on ocular disease diagnostic classification. a, internal evaluation, models are adapted to each dataset via fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data. The dataset details are listed in Supplementary Table 1. b, external evaluation, models are fine-tuned on one diabetic retinopathy dataset and externally evaluated on the others. c, performance on ocular disease prognosis. The models are fine-tuned to predict the conversion of fellow eye to wet-AMD in 1 year and evaluated internally. For each task, we trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 3 Performance (AUPR) on 3-year incidence prediction of systemic diseases with retinal images. a, internal evaluation, models are adapted to curated datasets from MEH-AlzEye via fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data. b, external evaluation, models are fine-tuned on MEH-AlzEye and externally evaluated on UK Biobank. Data for internal and external evaluation is described in Supplementary Table 2. For each task, we trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Performance (AUPR) on 3-year incidence prediction of systemic diseases with retinal images. a, internal evaluation, models are adapted to curated datasets from MEH-AlzEye via fine-tuning and internally evaluated on hold-out test data. b, external evaluation, models are fine-tuned on MEH-AlzEye and externally evaluated on UK Biobank. Data for internal and external evaluation is described in Supplementary Table 2. For each task, we trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 4 Adaptation efficiency in exemplar applications. Adaptation efficiency refers to the time required to achieve training convergence. We show the performance on validation sets with the same hyperparameters such as learning rate. The gray dash lines highlight the time point when the model checkpoint is saved and the time difference between RETFound and the most competitive comparison model is calculated. RETFound saves 80% of training time in adapting to 3-year incidence prediction of myocardial infarction and 46% in diabetic retinopathy MESSIDOR-2. 95% confidence intervals of AUROC are plotted in colour bands and the mean values are shown as centre lines.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Adaptation efficiency in exemplar applications. Adaptation efficiency refers to the time required to achieve training convergence. We show the performance on validation sets with the same hyperparameters such as learning rate. The gray dash lines highlight the time point when the model checkpoint is saved and the time difference between RETFound and the most competitive comparison model is calculated. RETFound saves 80% of training time in adapting to 3-year incidence prediction of myocardial infarction and 46% in diabetic retinopathy MESSIDOR-2. 95% confidence intervals of AUROC are plotted in colour bands and the mean values are shown as centre lines.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 5 Comparison of different SSL strategies in RETFound framework. We show AUROC of predicting ocular diseases and systemic diseases by the models pretrained with different SSL strategies, including the masked autoencoder (MAE), SwAV, SimCLR, MoCo-v3, and DINO. The corresponding quantitative results for the contrastive SSL approaches are listed in Supplementary Table 4. For each task, we trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Comparison of different SSL strategies in RETFound framework. We show AUROC of predicting ocular diseases and systemic diseases by the models pretrained with different SSL strategies, including the masked autoencoder (MAE), SwAV, SimCLR, MoCo-v3, and DINO. The corresponding quantitative results for the contrastive SSL approaches are listed in Supplementary Table 4. For each task, we trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 6 Qualitative results of RETFound. a, Reconstructed colour fundus photographs and optical coherent tomography scans from highly masked images in pretext task. Although with few patches visible, RETFound infers the retina-specific anatomical structures (e.g. optic nerve and retinal nerve fibre layer) and disease lesions, which are markers for multiple diseases. b, Heatmaps highlighting the areas that contribute to the classification of the models in various downstream tasks. Red colour indicates high contribution. The well-defined pathologies of ocular diseases are identified and used for classification. For the prediction of systemic diseases, some anatomical structures associated with systemic conditions, e.g. optic nerve and vasculature on CFP and ganglion cell layer and macular area on OCT, are highlighted.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Qualitative results of RETFound. a, Reconstructed colour fundus photographs and optical coherent tomography scans from highly masked images in pretext task. Although with few patches visible, RETFound infers the retina-specific anatomical structures (e.g. optic nerve and retinal nerve fibre layer) and disease lesions, which are markers for multiple diseases. b, Heatmaps highlighting the areas that contribute to the classification of the models in various downstream tasks. Red colour indicates high contribution. The well-defined pathologies of ocular diseases are identified and used for classification. For the prediction of systemic diseases, some anatomical structures associated with systemic conditions, e.g. optic nerve and vasculature on CFP and ganglion cell layer and macular area on OCT, are highlighted.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 7 Performance on various age distributions in predicting myocardial infarction. The disease group remains unchanged (mean value of age is 72.1) while the four control groups are sampled with various age distributions (mean values of age are respectively 66.8, 68.5, 70.4, and 71.9). The X axis shows the age difference between disease group and control groups. With each control group, we evaluate the performance of predicting myocardial infarction. The performance of RETFound remains robust to age difference while that of compared models drops when the age difference decreases. Logistic regression uses age as input. The logistic regression performs well when age difference is large (about 6) but clearly worse than SSL models when the difference becomes smaller. 95% confidence intervals are plotted in colour bands and the mean value of performances are shown as the band centres.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Performance on various age distributions in predicting myocardial infarction. The disease group remains unchanged (mean value of age is 72.1) while the four control groups are sampled with various age distributions (mean values of age are respectively 66.8, 68.5, 70.4, and 71.9). The X axis shows the age difference between disease group and control groups. With each control group, we evaluate the performance of predicting myocardial infarction. The performance of RETFound remains robust to age difference while that of compared models drops when the age difference decreases. Logistic regression uses age as input. The logistic regression performs well when age difference is large (about 6) but clearly worse than SSL models when the difference becomes smaller. 95% confidence intervals are plotted in colour bands and the mean value of performances are shown as the band centres.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 8 Reliability diagrams and expected calibration error (ECE) for prediction models. Reliability diagrams measure the consistency between the prediction probabilities of an event (e.g. myocardial infarction) with the actual chance of observing the event. The dashed line (diagonal line) indicates a perfectly calibrated model and the deviation represents the miscalibration. RETFound is closest to diagonal lines and the ECE is lowest among all models.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Reliability diagrams and expected calibration error (ECE) for prediction models. Reliability diagrams measure the consistency between the prediction probabilities of an event (e.g. myocardial infarction) with the actual chance of observing the event. The dashed line (diagonal line) indicates a perfectly calibrated model and the deviation represents the miscalibration. RETFound is closest to diagonal lines and the ECE is lowest among all models.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 9 Performance in predicting heart failure across ethnicities. We show AUROC of predicting 3-year heart failure in subsets with different ethnicity, including White, Asian or Asian British, and Black or Black British subgroups, the three largest major categories of ethnicity as described by the UK Government’s Office for National Statistics. Data is from MEH-AlzEye test set. The first column shows the performance on all test data, followed by results on three subgroups. The cohort quantity is listed in titles. We trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Performance in predicting heart failure across ethnicities. We show AUROC of predicting 3-year heart failure in subsets with different ethnicity, including White, Asian or Asian British, and Black or Black British subgroups, the three largest major categories of ethnicity as described by the UK Government’s Office for National Statistics. Data is from MEH-AlzEye test set. The first column shows the performance on all test data, followed by results on three subgroups. The cohort quantity is listed in titles. We trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 10 Performance in predicting myocardial infarction across ethnicities. We show AUROC of predicting 3-year myocardial infarction in subsets with different ethnicity. Data is from MEH-AlzEye test set. The first column shows the performance on all test data, followed by results on White, Asian or Asian British, and Black or Black British cohorts. The cohort quantity is listed in titles. We trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Performance in predicting myocardial infarction across ethnicities. We show AUROC of predicting 3-year myocardial infarction in subsets with different ethnicity. Data is from MEH-AlzEye test set. The first column shows the performance on all test data, followed by results on White, Asian or Asian British, and Black or Black British cohorts. The cohort quantity is listed in titles. We trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 11 Performance in predicting ischaemic stroke across ethnicities. We show AUROC of predicting 3-year ischaemic stroke in subsets with different ethnicity. Data is from MEH-AlzEye test set. The first column shows the performance on all test data, followed by results on White, Asian or Asian British, and Black or Black British cohorts. The cohort quantity is listed in titles. We trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.
Extended Data Fig. 11 Performance in predicting ischaemic stroke across ethnicities. We show AUROC of predicting 3-year ischaemic stroke in subsets with different ethnicity. Data is from MEH-AlzEye test set. The first column shows the performance on all test data, followed by results on White, Asian or Asian British, and Black or Black British cohorts. The cohort quantity is listed in titles. We trained the model with 5 different random seeds, determining the shuffling of training data, and evaluated the models on the test set to get 5 replicas. We derived the statistics with the 5 replicas. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals and the bars’ centre represents the mean value of the AUPR. We compare the performance of RETFound with the most competitive comparison model to check if statistically significant differences exist. p-value is calculated with the two-sided t-test and listed in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Swersky, K., Norouzi, M. & Hinton, G. Big self-supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (ed. Ranzato, M.) 22243–22255 (Neurips, 2020).
  2. Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M. & Hinton, G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proc. 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Iii, H. D. & Singh, A.) 1597–1607 (PMLR, 2020).
  3. Truong, T., Mohammadi, S. & Lenga, M. How transferable are self-supervised features in medical image classification tasks? In Proc. 2021 Machine Learning for Health (eds Roy, S. et al.) 54–74 (PMLR, 2021)
  4. Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y. & Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Precup, D. & Teh, Y. W.) Vol. 70, 1321–1330 (PMLR, 2017).
  5. Dosovitskiy, A. et al. An image is worth 16×16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale. In Proc. 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (eds Hofmann, K. et al.) https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy (ICLR 2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, Y., Chia, M. A., Wagner, S. K., Ayhan, M. S., Williamson, D. J., Struyven, R. R., Liu, T., Xu, M., Lozano, M. G., Woodward-Court, P., Kihara, Y., UK Biobank Eye & Vision Consortium, Allen, N., Gallacher, J. E. J., Littlejohns, T., Aslam, T., Bishop, P., Black, G., Sergouniotis, P., Atan, D., Dick, A. D., Williams, C., Barman, S., Barrett, J. H., Mackie, S., Braithwaite, T., Carare, R. O., Ennis, S., Gibson, J., Lotery, A. J., Self, J., Chakravarthy, U., Hogg, R. E., Paterson, E., Woodside, J., Peto, T., Mckay, G., Mcguinness, B., Foster, P. J., Balaskas, K., Khawaja, A. P., Pontikos, N., Rahi, J. S., Lascaratos, G., Patel, P. J., Chan, M., Chua, S. Y. L., Day, A., Desai, P., Egan, C., Fruttiger, M., Garway-Heath, D. F., Hardcastle, A., Khaw, S. P. T., Moore, T., Sivaprasad, S., Strouthidis, N., Thomas, D., Tufail, A., Viswanathan, A. C., Dhillon, B., Macgillivray, T., Sudlow, C., Vitart, V., Doney, A., Trucco, E., Guggeinheim, J. A., Morgan, J. E., Hammond, C. J., Williams, K., Hysi, P., Harding, S. P., Zheng, Y., Luben, R., Luthert, P., Sun, Z., McKibbin, M., O’Sullivan, E., Oram, R., Weedon, M., Owen, C. G., Rudnicka, A. R., Sattar, N., Steel, D., Stratton, I., Tapp, R., Yates, M. M., Petzold, A., Madhusudhan, S., Altmann, A., Lee, A. Y., Topol, E. J., Denniston, A. K., Alexander, D. C., & Keane, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Universidade da Coruña (ES)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Kingston University London (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • Royal Liverpool University Hospital (GB)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Zhou, Yukun
  • Keane, Pearse A.
ORCID
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-09-13
Volume
622
Issue
7981
Pages
156-163
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/s41586-023-06555-x
PMC
PMC10550819
OpenAlex
W4386697749
Cited by
1,014
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 388 · 2025: 389 · 2024: 214 · 2023: 21
FWCI
166.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RUC (Universidade Da Coruña) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RUNA. Repositorio Institucional del Sergas (Servicio Gallego de Salud (SERGAS)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR205103, NF-SI-0515-10020, NIHR205096, NIHR205109)
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • Moorfields Eye Charity (R190028A)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K003364/1, MR/TR000953/1, MC_UU_00007/10, MR/T019050/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M020533/1, EP/V034537/1, M020533/1, M020533, EP/R014019/1, V034537, R014019)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
RETFound, foundation models, fundus images, self-supervised learning, eye disease detection, heart failure, myocardial infarction, artificial intelligence in healthcare, annotation workload reduction
MeSH terms
Supervised Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Eye Diseases, Heart Failure, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, Retina

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