Skip to content
Review Open access

External validation of a deep-learning algorithm for perimetric glaucoma detection on color fundus photographs in the Rotterdam Study.

Nov 2026 · Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.) · 0 citations · 29 references
Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

To externally validate a deep-learning (DL) algorithm detecting perimetric glaucoma on color fundus photographs (CFPs) in a population-based cohort.

Design

External validation in a prospective population-based cohort.

Participants

Participants aged 50-80 years from three Rotterdam Study cohorts.

Methods

We applied the winning Artificial Intelligence for Robust Glaucoma Screening (AIROGS) challenge algorithm, trained on 101,442 macula-centered CFPs to detect referable presumed perimetric glaucoma. Performance was assessed at eye and participant level, with participant-level cluster bootstrap confidence intervals. Misclassified cases underwent qualitative review. Longitudinal detection was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Additionally, paired analyses compared macula- with disc-centered CFPs. A post-hoc analysis examined the effect of image quality on positive predictive value (PPV). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sensitivity at 95% specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), partial AUC (pAUC) for 90-100% specificity, PPV, and precision-recall AUC (PR-AUC).

Results

Among 19,088 eyes (9,837 participants), 201 eyes (1.1%) had perimetric glaucoma. At eye level, sensitivity at 95% specificity was 70.6% (95% CI: 63.8-76.8), with an ROC-AUC of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.887-0.934) and a PR-AUC of 0.343 (95% CI: 0.274-0.427). At participant level, sensitivity was 68.8% (95% CI: 61.8-75.9) and ROC-AUC 0.909 (95% CI: 0.882-0.934). Overall, this resulted in 5.1 referrals per detected glaucoma case. True positives showed more advanced visual field damage than false negatives (median mean deviation -10.8 vs -5.8 dB; P < 0.001). Among true positives with prior imaging, 33 of 61 (54%) were flagged before conversion, typically 4-7 years before diagnosis. Discrimination in the 90-100% specificity range was higher for disc- than macula-centered CFPs (pAUC 0.860 vs 0.802; P = 0.003). PPV improved substantially after excluding CFPs with incomplete optic nerve head (ONH) visibility.

Conclusions

The DL-algorithm achieved meaningful discrimination for perimetric glaucoma in an external population-based dataset. Correctly identified cases were frequently flagged at an earlier examination, years before the perimetric diagnosis. Despite having been trained exclusively on macula-centered CFPs, the DL-algorithm showed no loss of discriminative performance on disc-centered CFPs. Incomplete ONH visibility was an important source of false positives. These findings support CFP-based deep learning as a scalable triage tool for glaucoma screening and highlight image acquisition standards for implementation.

Read PDF

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.