Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

OphthalmologyApril 20208 citations

Using Deep Learning to Automate Goldmann Applanation Tonometry Readings.

Spaide Ted, Wu Yue, Yanagihara Ryan T, Feng Shu, Ghabra Omar, Yi Jonathan S, Chen Philip P, Moses Francy, Lee Aaron Y, Wen Joanne C


AI Summary

Deep learning automated GAT showed comparable IOP measurements to standard GAT, potentially reducing bias and improving repeatability, offering a more objective way to monitor glaucoma.

Abstract

Purpose

To develop an objective and automated method for measuring intraocular pressure using deep learning and fixed-force Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) techniques.

Design

Prospective cross-sectional study.

Participants

Patients from an academic glaucoma practice.

Methods

Intraocular pressure was estimated by analyzing videos recorded using a standard slit-lamp microscope and fixed-force GAT. Video frames were labeled to identify the outline of the reference tonometer and the applanation mires. A deep learning model was trained to localize and segment the tonometer and mires. Intraocular pressure values were calculated from the deep learning-predicted tonometer and mire diameters using the Imbert-Fick formula. A separate test set was collected prospectively in which standard and automated GAT measurements were collected in random order by 2 independent masked observers to assess the deep learning model as well as interobserver variability.

Main outcome measures

Intraocular pressure measurements between standard and automated methods were compared.

Results

Two hundred sixty-three eyes of 135 patients were included in the training and validation videos. For the test set, 50 eyes from 25 participants were included. Each eye was measured by 2 observers, resulting in 100 videos. Within the test set, the mean difference between automated and standard GAT results was -0.9 mmHg (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -5.4 to 3.6 mmHg). Mean difference between the 2 observers using standard GAT was 0.09 mmHg (LoA,-3.8 to 4.0 mmHg). Mean difference between the 2 observers using automated GAT videos was -0.3 mmHg (LoA, -4.1 to 3.5 mmHg). The coefficients of repeatability for automated and standard GAT were 3.8 and 3.9 mmHg, respectively. The bias for even-numbered measurements was reduced when using automated GAT.

Conclusions

Preliminary measurements using deep learning to automate GAT demonstrate results comparable with those of standard GAT. Automated GAT has the potential to improve on our current GAT measurement standards significantly by reducing bias and improving repeatability. In addition, ocular pulse amplitudes could be observed using this technique.


MeSH Terms

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesDeep LearningFemaleGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesROC CurveReproducibility of ResultsTonometry, Ocular

Key Concepts5

An automated deep learning method for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) achieved a mean difference of -0.9 mmHg (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -5.4 to 3.6 mmHg) compared to standard GAT measurements.

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalProspective Cross-sectional Studyn=50 eyes from 25 participantsCh3

The coefficients of repeatability for automated Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and standard GAT were 3.8 mmHg and 3.9 mmHg, respectively.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalProspective Cross-sectional Studyn=50 eyes from 25 participantsCh3

The bias for even-numbered measurements was reduced when using automated Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) compared to standard GAT.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalProspective Cross-sectional Studyn=50 eyes from 25 participantsCh3

The mean difference between two observers using standard Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) was 0.09 mmHg (limits of agreement [LoA], -3.8 to 4.0 mmHg).

DiagnosisCross-sectionalProspective Cross-sectional Studyn=50 eyes from 25 participantsCh3

The mean difference between two observers using automated Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) videos was -0.3 mmHg (limits of agreement [LoA], -4.1 to 3.5 mmHg).

DiagnosisCross-sectionalProspective Cross-sectional Studyn=50 eyes from 25 participantsCh3

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.