Table 3.
Screening performance of EyeArt software compared with the final human grade in the worst eye for each centre and for all three centres combined
| EyeART classification (row % within each centre) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final human grade | NEL | GS | SEL | Combined (row %) | ||||
| Test-negative | Test-positive | Test-negative | Test-positive | Test-negative | Test-positive | Test-negative | Test-positive | |
| Retinopathy grades | ||||||||
| R0M0 | 4787 (68.1%) | 2244 (31.9%) | 4891 (71.2%) | 1976 (28.8%) | 4793 (64.6%) | 2621 (35.4%) | 14 471 (67.9%) | 6841 (32.1%) |
| R1M0 | 184 (8.2%) | 2068 (91.8%) | 431 (16.3%) | 2214 (83.7%) | 133 (6.7%) | 1861 (93.3%) | 748 (10.9%) | 6143 (89.1%) |
| R1M1 | 4 (1.1%) | 364 (98.9%) | 8 (2.8%) | 279 (97.2%) | 5 (1.4%) | 341 (98.6%) | 17 (1.7%) | 984 (98.3%) |
| R2 | 0 (0%) | 127 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 50 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 113 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 290 (100%) |
| R2M0 | 0 (0%) | 38 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 24 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 31 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 93 (100%) |
| R2M1 | 0 (0%) | 89 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 26 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 82 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 197 (100%) |
| R3 | 0 (0%) | 57 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 49 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 66 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 172 (100%) |
| R3M0 | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 23 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 71 (100%) |
| R3M1 | 0 (0%) | 29 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 26 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 46 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 101 (100%) |
| U | 29 (9.6%) | 273 (90.4%) | 22 (11.4%) | 171 (88.6%) | 27 (11.1%) | 217 (88.9%) | 78 (10.6%) | 661 (89.4%) |
| Total | 5004 | 5133 | 5352 | 4739 | 4958 | 5219 | 15 314 | 15 091 |
Retinopathy grades: No retinopathy (R0); mild-to-moderate non-proliferative retinopathy (R1); non-referable maculopathy (M0); ungradable images (U); referable maculopathy (M1), moderate-to-severe non-proliferative retinopathy (R2) and proliferative retinopathy (R3).8 9
GS, Gloucestershire; NEL, North East London; SEL, South East London.