PURPOSE: To assess the within- and between-operator agreement of a computer-aided manual segmentation procedure for frequency-domain optical coherence tomography scans. METHODS: Four individuals (segmenters) used a computer-aided manual procedure to mark the borders defining the layers analyzed in glaucoma studies. After training, they segmented two sets of scans, an Assessment Set and a Test Set. Each set had scans from 10 patients with glaucoma and 10 healthy controls. Based on an analysis of the Assessment Set, a set of guidelines was written. The Test Set was segmented twice with a ≥1 month separation. Various measures were used to compare test and retest (within-segmenter) variability and between-segmenter variability including concordance correlations between layer borders and the mean across scans (n = 20) of the mean of absolute differences between local border locations of individual scans, MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )}. RESULTS: Within-segmenter reliability was good. The mean concordance correlations values for an individual segmenter and a particular border ranged from 0.999 ± 0.000 to 0.978 ± 0.084. The MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )} values ranged from 1.6 to 4.7 μm depending on border and segmenter. Similarly, between-segmenter agreement was good. The mean concordance correlations values for an individual segmenter and a particular border ranged from 0.999 ± 0.001 to 0.992 ± 0.023. The MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )} values ranged from 1.9 to 4.0 μm depending on border and segmenter. The signed and unsigned average positions were considerably smaller than the MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )} values for both within- and between-segmenter comparisons. Measures of within-segmenter variability were only slightly larger than those of between-segmenter variability. CONCLUSIONS: When human segmenters are trained, the within-and between-segmenter reliability of manual border segmentation is quite good. When expressed as a percentage of retinal layer thickness, the results suggest that manual segmentation provides a reliable measure of the thickness of layers typically measured in studies of glaucoma.
PURPOSE: To assess the within- and between-operator agreement of a computer-aided manual segmentation procedure for frequency-domain optical coherence tomography scans. METHODS: Four individuals (segmenters) used a computer-aided manual procedure to mark the borders defining the layers analyzed in glaucoma studies. After training, they segmented two sets of scans, an Assessment Set and a Test Set. Each set had scans from 10 patients with glaucoma and 10 healthy controls. Based on an analysis of the Assessment Set, a set of guidelines was written. The Test Set was segmented twice with a ≥1 month separation. Various measures were used to compare test and retest (within-segmenter) variability and between-segmenter variability including concordance correlations between layer borders and the mean across scans (n = 20) of the mean of absolute differences between local border locations of individual scans, MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )}. RESULTS: Within-segmenter reliability was good. The mean concordance correlations values for an individual segmenter and a particular border ranged from 0.999 ± 0.000 to 0.978 ± 0.084. The MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )} values ranged from 1.6 to 4.7 μm depending on border and segmenter. Similarly, between-segmenter agreement was good. The mean concordance correlations values for an individual segmenter and a particular border ranged from 0.999 ± 0.001 to 0.992 ± 0.023. The MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )} values ranged from 1.9 to 4.0 μm depending on border and segmenter. The signed and unsigned average positions were considerably smaller than the MEAN{mean( ΔLBL )} values for both within- and between-segmenter comparisons. Measures of within-segmenter variability were only slightly larger than those of between-segmenter variability. CONCLUSIONS: When human segmenters are trained, the within-and between-segmenter reliability of manual border segmentation is quite good. When expressed as a percentage of retinal layer thickness, the results suggest that manual segmentation provides a reliable measure of the thickness of layers typically measured in studies of glaucoma.
Authors: Folkert K Horn; Christian Y Mardin; Robert Laemmer; Delia Baleanu; Anselm M Juenemann; Friedrich E Kruse; Ralf P Tornow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-01-17 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J S Schuman; M R Hee; C A Puliafito; C Wong; T Pedut-Kloizman; C P Lin; E Hertzmark; J A Izatt; E A Swanson; J G Fujimoto Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 1995-05
Authors: Min Wang; Donald C Hood; Jung-Suk Cho; Quraish Ghadiali; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Gustavo V De Moraes; Xian Zhang; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-07
Authors: Mona K Garvin; Michael D Abramoff; Randy Kardon; Stephen R Russell; Xiaodong Wu; Milan Sonka Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Mona Kathryn Garvin; Michael David Abràmoff; Xiaodong Wu; Stephen R Russell; Trudy L Burns; Milan Sonka Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Donald C Hood; Christine E Lin; Margot A Lazow; Kirsten G Locke; Xian Zhang; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jennifer I Lim; Ou Tan; Amani A Fawzi; J Jill Hopkins; John H Gil-Flamer; David Huang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Donald C Hood; Ali S Raza; Kristine Y Kay; Shlomit F Sandler; Daiyan Xin; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: Opt Express Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Margot A Lazow; Donald C Hood; Rithambara Ramachandran; Tomas R Burke; Yi-Zhong Wang; Vivienne C Greenstein; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Xian Zhang; Rithambara Ramachandran; Christine L Talamini; Ali Raza; Jonathan P Greenberg; Jerome Sherman; Stephen H Tsang; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michaela A Seigo; Elias S Sotirchos; Scott Newsome; Aleksandra Babiarz; Christopher Eckstein; E'tona Ford; Jonathan D Oakley; Stephanie B Syc; Teresa C Frohman; John N Ratchford; Laura J Balcer; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Tobias Duncker; Gregory E Stein; Winston Lee; Stephen H Tsang; Jana Zernant; Srilaxmi Bearelly; Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein; François C Delori; Rando Allikmets; Janet R Sparrow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mona K Garvin; Kyungmoo Lee; Trudy L Burns; Michael D Abràmoff; Milan Sonka; Young H Kwon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mário L R Monteiro; Kenzo Hokazono; Danilo B Fernandes; Luciana V F Costa-Cunha; Rafael M Sousa; Ali S Raza; Diane L Wang; Donald C Hood Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jennifer H Acton; R Theodore Smith; Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 4.799