PURPOSE: We evaluated variability and conviction in tracing paths of retinal nerve fiber bundles (RNFBs) in retinal images, and compared traced paths to a computational model that produces anatomically-customized structure-function maps. METHODS: Ten retinal images were overlaid with 24-2 visual field locations. Eight clinicians and 6 naïve observers traced RNFBs from each location to the optic nerve head (ONH), recording their best estimate and certain range of insertion. Three clinicians and 2 naïve observers traced RNFBs in 3 images, 3 times, 7 to 19 days apart. The model predicted 10° ONH sectors relating to each location. Variability and repeatability in best estimates, certain range width, and differences between best estimates and model-predictions were evaluated. RESULTS: Median between-observer variability in best estimates was 27° (interquartile range [IQR] 20°-38°) for clinicians and 33° (IQR 22°-50°) for naïve observers. Median certain range width was 30° (IQR 14°-45°) for clinicians and 75° (IQR 45°-180°) for naïve observers. Median repeatability was 10° (IQR 5°-20°) for clinicians and 15° (IQR 10°-29°) for naïve observers. All measures were worse further from the ONH. Systematic differences between model predictions and best estimates were negligible; median absolute differences were 17° (IQR 9°-30°) for clinicians and 20° (IQR 10°-36°) for naïve observers. Larger departures from the model coincided with greater variability in tracing. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance between the model and RNFB tracing was good, and greatest where tracing variability was lowest. When RNFB tracing is used for structure-function mapping, variability should be considered.
PURPOSE: We evaluated variability and conviction in tracing paths of retinal nerve fiber bundles (RNFBs) in retinal images, and compared traced paths to a computational model that produces anatomically-customized structure-function maps. METHODS: Ten retinal images were overlaid with 24-2 visual field locations. Eight clinicians and 6 naïve observers traced RNFBs from each location to the optic nerve head (ONH), recording their best estimate and certain range of insertion. Three clinicians and 2 naïve observers traced RNFBs in 3 images, 3 times, 7 to 19 days apart. The model predicted 10° ONH sectors relating to each location. Variability and repeatability in best estimates, certain range width, and differences between best estimates and model-predictions were evaluated. RESULTS: Median between-observer variability in best estimates was 27° (interquartile range [IQR] 20°-38°) for clinicians and 33° (IQR 22°-50°) for naïve observers. Median certain range width was 30° (IQR 14°-45°) for clinicians and 75° (IQR 45°-180°) for naïve observers. Median repeatability was 10° (IQR 5°-20°) for clinicians and 15° (IQR 10°-29°) for naïve observers. All measures were worse further from the ONH. Systematic differences between model predictions and best estimates were negligible; median absolute differences were 17° (IQR 9°-30°) for clinicians and 20° (IQR 10°-36°) for naïve observers. Larger departures from the model coincided with greater variability in tracing. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance between the model and RNFB tracing was good, and greatest where tracing variability was lowest. When RNFB tracing is used for structure-function mapping, variability should be considered.
Keywords:
glaucoma; mapping; optic nerve head; structure–function; visual field
Authors: Mitsuro Sugita; Michael Pircher; Stefan Zotter; Bernhard Baumann; Philipp Roberts; Tomoyuki Makihira; Nobuhiro Tomatsu; Makoto Sato; Clemens Vass; Christoph K Hitzenberger Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Navid Amini; Sara Nowroozizadeh; Nila Cirineo; Sharon Henry; Ted Chang; Tom Chou; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Matthew Nguyen; Alyssa C Ehrlich; Ali S Raza; Ieva Sliesoraityte; Carlos G De Moraes; Robert Ritch; Ulrich Schiefer Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Mengyu Wang; Lucy Q Shen; Michael V Boland; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Muhammed S Alluwimi; William H Swanson; Victor E Malinovsky; Brett J King Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Rahul A Jonas; Ya Xing Wang; Hua Yang; Jian Jun Li; Liang Xu; Songhomitra Panda-Jonas; Jost B Jonas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240