N V Prajna, Jad Assaf, Nisha R Acharya, Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer, Thomas M Lietman, J Peter Campbell, Jeremy D Keenan, Xubo Song, Travis K Redd
{"title":"Multimodal Deep Learning for Differentiating Bacterial and Fungal Keratitis Using Prospective Representative Data.","authors":"N V Prajna, Jad Assaf, Nisha R Acharya, Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer, Thomas M Lietman, J Peter Campbell, Jeremy D Keenan, Xubo Song, Travis K Redd","doi":"10.1016/j.xops.2024.100665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study develops and evaluates multimodal machine learning models for differentiating bacterial and fungal keratitis using a prospective representative dataset from South India.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Machine learning classifier training and validation study.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Five hundred ninety-nine subjects diagnosed with acute infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed and compared 3 prediction models to distinguish bacterial and fungal keratitis using a prospective, consecutively-collected, representative dataset gathered over a full calendar year (the MADURAI dataset). These models included a clinical data model, a computer vision model using the EfficientNet architecture, and a multimodal model combining both imaging and clinical data. We partitioned the MADURAI dataset into 70% train/validation and 30% test sets. Model training was performed with fivefold cross-validation. We also compared the performance of the MADURAI-trained computer vision model against a model with identical architecture but trained on a preexisting dataset collated from multiple prior bacterial and fungal keratitis randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (the RCT-trained computer vision model).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary evaluation metric was the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Secondary metrics included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, and F1 score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MADURAI-trained computer vision model outperformed the clinical data model and the RCT-trained computer vision model on the hold-out test set, with an AUPRC 0.94 (95% confidence interval: 0.92-0.96), AUROC 0.81 (0.76-0.85), accuracy 77%, and F1 score 0.85. The multimodal model did not substantially improve performance compared with the computer vision model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The best-performing machine learning classifier for infectious keratitis was a computer vision model trained using the MADURAI dataset. These findings suggest that image-based deep learning could significantly enhance diagnostic capabilities for infectious keratitis and emphasize the importance of using prospective, consecutively-collected, representative data for machine learning model training and evaluation.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosures: </strong>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":74363,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology science","volume":"5 2","pages":"100665"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11758206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xops.2024.100665","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study develops and evaluates multimodal machine learning models for differentiating bacterial and fungal keratitis using a prospective representative dataset from South India.
Design: Machine learning classifier training and validation study.
Participants: Five hundred ninety-nine subjects diagnosed with acute infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India.
Methods: We developed and compared 3 prediction models to distinguish bacterial and fungal keratitis using a prospective, consecutively-collected, representative dataset gathered over a full calendar year (the MADURAI dataset). These models included a clinical data model, a computer vision model using the EfficientNet architecture, and a multimodal model combining both imaging and clinical data. We partitioned the MADURAI dataset into 70% train/validation and 30% test sets. Model training was performed with fivefold cross-validation. We also compared the performance of the MADURAI-trained computer vision model against a model with identical architecture but trained on a preexisting dataset collated from multiple prior bacterial and fungal keratitis randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (the RCT-trained computer vision model).
Main outcome measures: The primary evaluation metric was the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Secondary metrics included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, and F1 score.
Results: The MADURAI-trained computer vision model outperformed the clinical data model and the RCT-trained computer vision model on the hold-out test set, with an AUPRC 0.94 (95% confidence interval: 0.92-0.96), AUROC 0.81 (0.76-0.85), accuracy 77%, and F1 score 0.85. The multimodal model did not substantially improve performance compared with the computer vision model.
Conclusions: The best-performing machine learning classifier for infectious keratitis was a computer vision model trained using the MADURAI dataset. These findings suggest that image-based deep learning could significantly enhance diagnostic capabilities for infectious keratitis and emphasize the importance of using prospective, consecutively-collected, representative data for machine learning model training and evaluation.
Financial disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.