Extended Data Fig. 6: The triage-driven approach to select the equivocal cases with the lowest predicted confidence values for manual review.
From: Early detection of visual impairment in young children using a smartphone-based deep learning system
a, The false predicted rate (both false positive and false negative) in different percentile intervals of predicted confidence values. *P < 0.001 (0th–9th, n = 51; 10th–20th, n = 61; 20th–30th, n = 59; 30th–40th, n = 57; 40th–50th, n = 57; 50th–60th, n = 56; 60th–70th, n = 57; 70th–80th, n = 57; 80th–90th, n = 57; 90th–100th, n = 57; 0th–9th percentile versus other percentile intervals, P ranging from 7.92 × 10−8 for 90th–100th to 1.45 × 10−3 for 20th–30th; 10th–20th percentile versus other percentile intervals, P ranging from 2.02 × 10−6 for 90th–100th to 2.02 × 10−2 for 20th–30th; two-tailed Fisher’s exact tests). Results are expressed as means and the 95% Wilson confidence intervals (CIs). b, The performance of the triage-driven system with increasing manual review ratios for the equivocal cases. SPE, specificity; SEN, sensitivity; ACC, accuracy.
