Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ; 65(6): 6, 2024 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38833259

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To develop Choroidalyzer, an open-source, end-to-end pipeline for segmenting the choroid region, vessels, and fovea, and deriving choroidal thickness, area, and vascular index. Methods: We used 5600 OCT B-scans (233 subjects, six systemic disease cohorts, three device types, two manufacturers). To generate region and vessel ground-truths, we used state-of-the-art automatic methods following manual correction of inaccurate segmentations, with foveal positions manually annotated. We trained a U-Net deep learning model to detect the region, vessels, and fovea to calculate choroid thickness, area, and vascular index in a fovea-centered region of interest. We analyzed segmentation agreement (AUC, Dice) and choroid metrics agreement (Pearson, Spearman, mean absolute error [MAE]) in internal and external test sets. We compared Choroidalyzer to two manual graders on a small subset of external test images and examined cases of high error. Results: Choroidalyzer took 0.299 seconds per image on a standard laptop and achieved excellent region (Dice: internal 0.9789, external 0.9749), very good vessel segmentation performance (Dice: internal 0.8817, external 0.8703), and excellent fovea location prediction (MAE: internal 3.9 pixels, external 3.4 pixels). For thickness, area, and vascular index, Pearson correlations were 0.9754, 0.9815, and 0.8285 (internal)/0.9831, 0.9779, 0.7948 (external), respectively (all P < 0.0001). Choroidalyzer's agreement with graders was comparable to the intergrader agreement across all metrics. Conclusions: Choroidalyzer is an open-source, end-to-end pipeline that accurately segments the choroid and reliably extracts thickness, area, and vascular index. Especially choroidal vessel segmentation is a difficult and subjective task, and fully automatic methods like Choroidalyzer could provide objectivity and standardization.


Subject(s)
Choroid , Tomography, Optical Coherence , Humans , Choroid/blood supply , Choroid/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, Optical Coherence/methods , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Deep Learning , Retinal Vessels/diagnostic imaging , Fovea Centralis/diagnostic imaging , Fovea Centralis/blood supply , Adult , Reproducibility of Results
2.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ; 65(6): 10, 2024 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38842831

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To investigate whether fractal dimension (FD)-based oculomics could be used for individual risk prediction by evaluating repeatability and robustness. Methods: We used two datasets: "Caledonia," healthy adults imaged multiple times in quick succession for research (26 subjects, 39 eyes, 377 color fundus images), and GRAPE, glaucoma patients with baseline and follow-up visits (106 subjects, 196 eyes, 392 images). Mean follow-up time was 18.3 months in GRAPE; thus it provides a pessimistic lower bound because vasculature could change. FD was computed with DART and AutoMorph. Image quality was assessed with QuickQual, but no images were initially excluded. Pearson, Spearman, and intraclass correlation (ICC) were used for population-level repeatability. For individual-level repeatability, we introduce measurement noise parameter λ, which is within-eye standard deviation (SD) of FD measurements in units of between-eyes SD. Results: In Caledonia, ICC was 0.8153 for DART and 0.5779 for AutoMorph, Pearson/Spearman correlation (first and last image) 0.7857/0.7824 for DART, and 0.3933/0.6253 for AutoMorph. In GRAPE, Pearson/Spearman correlation (first and next visit) was 0.7479/0.7474 for DART, and 0.7109/0.7208 for AutoMorph (all P < 0.0001). Median λ in Caledonia without exclusions was 3.55% for DART and 12.65% for AutoMorph and improved to up to 1.67% and 6.64% with quality-based exclusions, respectively. Quality exclusions primarily mitigated large outliers. Worst quality in an eye correlated strongly with λ (Pearson 0.5350-0.7550, depending on dataset and method, all P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Repeatability was sufficient for individual-level predictions in heterogeneous populations. DART performed better on all metrics and might be able to detect small, longitudinal changes, highlighting the potential of robust methods.


Subject(s)
Fractals , Humans , Female , Reproducibility of Results , Male , Middle Aged , Adult , Risk Assessment/methods , Aged , Glaucoma/diagnosis , Glaucoma/physiopathology , Follow-Up Studies , Retina/diagnostic imaging , Retinal Vessels/diagnostic imaging
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...