BACKGROUND: The hallmarks of age related macular degeneration (AMD) are the subretinal deposits known as drusen. Current manual methods of drusen segmentation and quantification are laborious and subjective. The authors introduced a digital method and tested it for accuracy and reliability. METHODS: Fourteen eyes with drusen were selected. The authors digitally reconstructed the macular background using normal background areas ("dots") fitted to quadratic polynomials in two zones. The model was used to level the reflectance for the purpose of segmenting drusen by a global threshold. Measurements of drusen areas were compared with those of a semi-automated background levelling technique and manual drawings from stereo pairs. RESULTS: Intraobserver reproducibility had standard deviations from 0.1% to 4.1%. Interobserver reproducibility yielded 95% limits of agreement of -2.7% to 6.3%. The dots method compared with manual drawings and with the semi-automated method had 95% limits of agreement of -8.3% to 2.8% and -7.1% to 4.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The dots method was reproducible and accurate with respect to validated methods. It provided less total operating time and greater precision than that of standard fundus photo grading. With implementation of commercial software, this technique for macular image analysis has potential for use in clinical research.
BACKGROUND: The hallmarks of age related macular degeneration (AMD) are the subretinal deposits known as drusen. Current manual methods of drusen segmentation and quantification are laborious and subjective. The authors introduced a digital method and tested it for accuracy and reliability. METHODS: Fourteen eyes with drusen were selected. The authors digitally reconstructed the macular background using normal background areas ("dots") fitted to quadratic polynomials in two zones. The model was used to level the reflectance for the purpose of segmenting drusen by a global threshold. Measurements of drusen areas were compared with those of a semi-automated background levelling technique and manual drawings from stereo pairs. RESULTS: Intraobserver reproducibility had standard deviations from 0.1% to 4.1%. Interobserver reproducibility yielded 95% limits of agreement of -2.7% to 6.3%. The dots method compared with manual drawings and with the semi-automated method had 95% limits of agreement of -8.3% to 2.8% and -7.1% to 4.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The dots method was reproducible and accurate with respect to validated methods. It provided less total operating time and greater precision than that of standard fundus photo grading. With implementation of commercial software, this technique for macular image analysis has potential for use in clinical research.
Authors: R Theodore Smith; Takayuki Nagasaki; Janet R Sparrow; Irene Barbazetto; Caroline C W Klaver; Jackie K Chan Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2003-04-18 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Zohar Yehoshua; Fenghua Wang; Philip J Rosenfeld; Fernando M Penha; William J Feuer; Giovanni Gregori Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Hossein Rabbani; Michael J Allingham; Priyatham S Mettu; Scott W Cousins; Sina Farsiu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Zohar Yehoshua; Giovanni Gregori; SriniVas R Sadda; Fernando M Penha; Raquel Goldhardt; Muneeswar G Nittala; Ranjith K Konduru; William J Feuer; Pooja Gupta; Ying Li; Philip J Rosenfeld Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Rui Zhao; Acner Camino; Jie Wang; Ahmed M Hagag; Yansha Lu; Steven T Bailey; Christina J Flaxel; Thomas S Hwang; David Huang; Dengwang Li; Yali Jia Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Nieraj Jain; Sina Farsiu; Aziz A Khanifar; Srilaxmi Bearelly; R Theodore Smith; Joseph A Izatt; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Thomas Theelen; Tos T J M Berendschot; Carel B Hoyng; Camiel J F Boon; B Jeroen Klevering Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 3.117