IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0071154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crowdsourcing as a Novel Technique for Retinal Fundus Photography Classification: Analysis of Images in the EPIC Norfolk Cohort on Behalf of the UKBiobank Eye and Vision Consortium

Author

Listed:
  • Danny Mitry
  • Tunde Peto
  • Shabina Hayat
  • James E Morgan
  • Kay-Tee Khaw
  • Paul J Foster

Abstract

Aim: Crowdsourcing is the process of outsourcing numerous tasks to many untrained individuals. Our aim was to assess the performance and repeatability of crowdsourcing for the classification of retinal fundus photography. Methods: One hundred retinal fundus photograph images with pre-determined disease criteria were selected by experts from a large cohort study. After reading brief instructions and an example classification, we requested that knowledge workers (KWs) from a crowdsourcing platform classified each image as normal or abnormal with grades of severity. Each image was classified 20 times by different KWs. Four study designs were examined to assess the effect of varying incentive and KW experience in classification accuracy. All study designs were conducted twice to examine repeatability. Performance was assessed by comparing the sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Without restriction on eligible participants, two thousand classifications of 100 images were received in under 24 hours at minimal cost. In trial 1 all study designs had an AUC (95%CI) of 0.701(0.680–0.721) or greater for classification of normal/abnormal. In trial 1, the highest AUC (95%CI) for normal/abnormal classification was 0.757 (0.738–0.776) for KWs with moderate experience. Comparable results were observed in trial 2. In trial 1, between 64–86% of any abnormal image was correctly classified by over half of all KWs. In trial 2, this ranged between 74–97%. Sensitivity was ≥96% for normal versus severely abnormal detections across all trials. Sensitivity for normal versus mildly abnormal varied between 61–79% across trials. Conclusions: With minimal training, crowdsourcing represents an accurate, rapid and cost-effective method of retinal image analysis which demonstrates good repeatability. Larger studies with more comprehensive participant training are needed to explore the utility of this compelling technique in large scale medical image analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Danny Mitry & Tunde Peto & Shabina Hayat & James E Morgan & Kay-Tee Khaw & Paul J Foster, 2013. "Crowdsourcing as a Novel Technique for Retinal Fundus Photography Classification: Analysis of Images in the EPIC Norfolk Cohort on Behalf of the UKBiobank Eye and Vision Consortium," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-7, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0071154
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071154
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071154&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0071154?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0071154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.