DESIGN: Retrospective study.
METHODS: Based on the mean deviation (MD) of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), the 152 subjects were categorized into mild (MD > - 6 dB, 100), moderate (MD - 6 to - 12 dB, 26), and severe (MD
METHODS: The key items were generated by a panel of experts and selected according to content validity ratios. The developed scale was initially applied to 50 patients with AE (development cohort) to evaluate its acceptability, reproducibility, internal consistency, and construct validity. Then, the scale was applied to another independent cohort (validation cohort, n = 38).
RESULTS: A new scale consisting of 9 items (seizure, memory dysfunction, psychiatric symptoms, consciousness, language problems, dyskinesia/dystonia, gait instability and ataxia, brainstem dysfunction, and weakness) was developed. Each item was assigned a value of up to 3 points. The total score could therefore range from 0 to 27. We named the scale the Clinical Assessment Scale in Autoimmune Encephalitis (CASE). The new scale showed excellent interobserver (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97) and intraobserver (ICC = 0.96) reliability for total scores, was highly correlated with modified Rankin scale (r = 0.86, p
METHODS: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning.
RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83.
CONCLUSION: Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.