Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNakayama, Luis Filipe
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, William Greig
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Lucas Zago
dc.contributor.authorDychiao, Robyn Gayle
dc.contributor.authorPhanphruk, Warachaya
dc.contributor.authorCeli, Leo Anthony
dc.contributor.authorKalua, Khumbo
dc.contributor.authorSantiago, Alvina Pauline Dy
dc.contributor.authorRegatieri, Caio Vinicius Saito
dc.contributor.authorMoraes, Nilva Simeren Bueno
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-12T21:02:27Z
dc.date.available2024-02-12T21:02:27Z
dc.date.issued2023-08
dc.identifier.issn2397-3269
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/153505
dc.description.abstractBackground Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a vasoproliferative disease responsible for more than 30 000 blind children worldwide. Its diagnosis and treatment are challenging due to the lack of specialists, divergent diagnostic concordance and variation in classification standards. While artificial intelligence (AI) can address the shortage of professionals and provide more cost-effective management, its development needs fairness, generalisability and bias controls prior to deployment to avoid producing harmful unpredictable results. This review aims to compare AI and ROP study’s characteristics, fairness and generalisability efforts. Methods Our review yielded 220 articles, of which 18 were included after full-text assessment. The articles were classified into ROP severity grading, plus detection, detecting treatment requiring, ROP prediction and detection of retinal zones.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>All the article’s authors and included patients are from middle-income and high-income countries, with no low-income countries, South America, Australia and Africa Continents representation.</jats:p><jats:p>Code is available in two articles and in one on request, while data are not available in any article. 88.9% of the studies use the same retinal camera. In two articles, patients’ sex was described, but none applied a bias control in their models. Conclusion The reviewed articles included 180 228 images and reported good metrics, but fairness, generalisability and bias control remained limited. Reproducibility is also a critical limitation, with few articles sharing codes and none sharing data. Fair and generalisable ROP and AI studies are needed that include diverse datasets, data and code sharing, collaborative research, and bias control to avoid unpredictable and harmful deployments.en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherBMJen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1136/bmjophth-2022-001216en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution Noncommercialen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0en_US
dc.sourceBMJen_US
dc.subjectOphthalmologyen_US
dc.titleFairness and generalisability in deep learning of retinopathy of prematurity screening algorithms: a literature reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationNakayama LF, Mitchell WG, Ribeiro LZ, et alFairness and generalisability in deep learning of retinopathy of prematurity screening algorithms: a literature reviewBMJ Open Ophthalmology 2023;8:e001216.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentHarvard--MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. Laboratory for Computational Physiology
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.date.submission2024-02-12T20:55:19Z
mit.journal.volume8en_US
mit.journal.issue1en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusAuthority Work and Publication Information Neededen_US


Files in this item

No Thumbnail [100%x160]
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record