Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39253548›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Artificial Intelligence-Based Disease Activity Monitoring to Personalized Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment: A Feasibility Study.

Zufar Mulyukov, Pearse A Keane, Jayashree Sahni, Sandra Liakopoulos, Katja Hatz, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, Roberto Gallego-Pinazo, Tariq Aslam, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Gabriella De Salvo and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Zufar MulyukovNovartis Pharmaceuticals AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Pearse A KeaneNIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Jayashree SahniNovartis Pharmaceuticals AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Sandra LiakopoulosCologne Image Reading Center and Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Katja HatzVista Augenklinik Binningen, Binningen, Switzerland.
Daniel Shu Wei TingYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Roberto Gallego-PinazoOftalvist Clinic, Valencia, Spain.
Tariq AslamSchool of Pharmacy and Optometry, University of Manchester, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Chui Ming Gemmy CheungDuke-NUS Academic Clinical Programme, University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Gabriella De SalvoOphthalmology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Oudy SemounCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France.
Gábor Márk SomfaiStadtspital Zürich, Department of Ophthalmology, Zürich, Switzerland.
Andreas StahlDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Brandon J LujanOHSU Casey Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon.
Daniel LorandNovartis Pharmaceuticals AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a disease activity (DA) model developed to detect DA in participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Design: Post hoc analysis. Participants: Patient dataset from the phase III HAWK and HARRIER (H&H) studies. Methods: An artificial intelligence (AI)-based DA model was developed to generate a DA score based on measurements of OCT images and other parameters collected from H&H study participants. Disease activity assessments were classified into 3 categories based on the extent of agreement between the DA model's scores and the H&H investigators' decisions: agreement ("easy"), disagreement ("noisy"), and close to the decision boundary ("difficult"). Then, a panel of 10 international retina specialists ("panelists") reviewed a sample of DA assessments of these 3 categories that contributed to the training of the final DA model. A panelists' majority vote on the reviewed cases was used to evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the DA model. Main Outcome Measures: The DA model's performance in detecting DA compared with the DA assessments made by the investigators and panelists' majority vote. Results: A total of 4472 OCT DA assessments were used to develop the model; of these, panelists reviewed 425, categorized as "easy" (17.2%), "noisy" (20.5%), and "difficult" (62.4%). False-positive and false negative rates of the DA model's assessments decreased after changing the assessment in some cases reviewed by the panelists and retraining the DA model. Overall, the DA model achieved 80% accuracy. For "easy" cases, the DA model reached 96% accuracy and performed as well as the investigators (96% accuracy) and panelists (90% accuracy). For "noisy" cases, the DA model performed similarly to panelists and outperformed the investigators (84%, 86%, and 16% accuracies, respectively). The DA model also outperformed the investigators for "difficult" cases (74% and 53% accuracies, respectively) but underperformed the panelists (86% accuracy) owing to lower specificity. Subretinal and intraretinal fluids were the main clinical parameters driving the DA assessments made by the panelists. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the potential of using an AI-based DA model to optimize treatment decisions in the clinical setting and in detecting and monitoring DA in patients with nAMD. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningDisease activityNeovascular age-related macular degenerationOptical coherence tomography

Identifiers

PMID39253548
PMCPMC11381777

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.