Publisher:
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Issued date:
2021-03
Citation:
Romero-Aroca, P., Verges-Pujol, R., Santos-Blanco, E., Maarof, N., Valls, A., Mundet, X., Moreno, A., Galindo, L. & Baget-Bernaldiz, M. (2021). Validation of a Diagnostic Support System for Diabetic Retinopathy Based on Clinical Parameters. Translational Vision Science & Technology, 10(3), 17.
Sponsor:
The authors thank Phil Hoddy for his language assistance and for editing and correcting the English text. Supported by Instituto de Investigaciones Carlos III (research projects PI18/00169, PI12/01535, and PI15/01150) and by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER). The authors thank Phil Hoddy for his language assistance and for editing and correcting the English text. Supported by Instituto de Investigaciones Carlos III (research projects PI18/00169, PI12/01535, and PI15/01150) and by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER).
Keywords:
Clinical decision support system
,
Diabetic retinopathy
,
Epidemiology
,
Fuzzy rules
,
Random forest
,
Screening
Purpose: To validate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that estimates risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and to personalize screening protocols in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
Methods: We utilized a CDSS based on a fuzzy random forest, iPurpose: To validate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that estimates risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and to personalize screening protocols in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
Methods: We utilized a CDSS based on a fuzzy random forest, integrated by fuzzy decision trees with the following variables: current age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes duration and treatment, HbA1c, glomerular filtration rate, microalbuminuria, and body mass index. Validation was made using the electronic health records of a sample of 101,802 T2DM patients. Diagnosis was made by retinal photographs, according to EURODIAB guidelines and the International Diabetic Retinopathy Classification.
Results: The prevalence of DR was 19,759 patients (19.98%). Results yielded 16,593 (16.31%) true positives, 72,617 (71.33%) true negatives, 3165 (3.1%) false positives, and 9427 (9.26%) false negatives, with an accuracy of 0.876 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.858–0.886), sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 83.46–84.49), specificity of 88.5% (95% CI, 88.29–88.72), positive predictive value of 63.8% (95% CI, 63.18–64.35), negative predictive value of 95.8% (95% CI, 95.68–95.96), positive likelihood ratio of 7.30, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.18. The type 1 error was 0.115, and the type 2 error was 0.16.
Conclusions: We confirmed a good prediction rate for DR from a representative sample of T2DM in our population. Furthermore, the CDSS was able to offer an individualized screening protocol for each patient according to the calculated risk confidence value.
Translational Relevance: Results from this study will help to establish a novel strategy for personalizing screening for DR according to patient risk factors.[+][-]