Paper detail

Grader variability and the importance of reference standards for evaluating machine learning models for diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema are common complications of diabetes which can lead to vision loss. The grading of DR is a fairly complex process that requires the detection of fine features such as microaneurysms, intraretinal hemorrhages, and intraretinal microvascular abnormalities. Because of this, there can be a fair amount of grader variability. There are different methods of obtaining the reference standard and resolving disagreements between graders, and while it is usually accepted that adjudication until full consensus will yield the best reference standard, the difference between various methods of resolving disagreements has not been examined extensively. In this study, we examine the variability in different methods of grading, definitions of reference standards, and their effects on building deep learning models for the detection of diabetic eye disease. We find that a small set of adjudicated DR grades allows substantial improvements in algorithm performance. The resulting algorithm's performance was on par with that of individual U.S. board-certified ophthalmologists and retinal specialists.

preprint2018arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.