Purpose

To validate the prediction accuracy of variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) with two datasets external to the training dataset.

Method

The training dataset consisted of 7268 eyes of 4278 subjects from the University of Tokyo Hospital. The Japanese Archive of Multicentral Databases in Glaucoma (JAMDIG) dataset consisted of 271 eyes of 177 patients, and the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) dataset includes 248 eyes of 173 patients, which were used for validation. Prediction accuracy was compared between the VBLR and ordinary least squared linear regression (OLSLR). First, OLSLR and VBLR were carried out using total deviation (TD) values at each of the 52 test points from the second to fourth visual fields (VFs) (VF2-4) to 2nd to 10th VF (VF2-10) of each patient in JAMDIG and DIGS datasets, and the TD values of the 11th VF test were predicted every time. The predictive accuracy of each method was compared through the root mean squared error (RMSE) statistic.

Results

OLSLR RMSEs with the JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 31 and 4.3 dB, and between 19.5 and 3.9 dB. On the other hand, VBLR RMSEs with JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 5.0 and 3.7, and between 4.6 and 3.6 dB. There was statistically significant difference between VBLR and OLSLR for both datasets at every series (VF2-4 to VF2-10) (P < 0.01 for all tests). However, there was no statistically significant difference in VBLR RMSEs between JAMDIG and DIGS datasets at any series of VFs (VF2-2 to VF2-10) (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

VBLR outperformed OLSLR to predict future VF progression, and the VBLR has a potential to be a helpful tool at clinical settings.

Purpose

To compare performance of independently developed deep learning algorithms for detecting glaucoma from fundus photographs and to evaluate strategies for incorporating new data into models.

Methods

Two fundus photograph datasets from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study/African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study and Matsue Red Cross Hospital were used to independently develop deep learning algorithms for detection of glaucoma at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of Tokyo. We compared three versions of the University of California, San Diego, and University of Tokyo models: original (no retraining), sequential (retraining only on new data), and combined (training on combined data). Independent datasets were used to test the algorithms.

Results

The original University of California, San Diego and University of Tokyo models performed similarly (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.96 and 0.97, respectively) for detection of glaucoma in the Matsue Red Cross Hospital dataset, but not the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study/African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study data (0.79 and 0.92; P < .001), respectively. Model performance was higher when classifying moderate-to-severe compared with mild disease (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.98 and 0.91; P < .001), respectively. Models trained with the combined strategy generally had better performance across all datasets than the original strategy.

Conclusions

Deep learning glaucoma detection can achieve high accuracy across diverse datasets with appropriate training strategies. Because model performance was influenced by the severity of disease, labeling, training strategies, and population characteristics, reporting accuracy stratified by relevant covariates is important for cross study comparisons.

Translational relevance

High sensitivity and specificity of deep learning algorithms for moderate-to-severe glaucoma across diverse populations suggest a role for artificial intelligence in the detection of glaucoma in primary care.