| Literature DB >> 25178846 |
Gábor Márk Somfai, Erika Tátrai, Lenke Laurik, Boglárka E Varga, Vera Ölvedy, William E Smiddy, Robert Tchitnga, Anikó Somogyi, Delia Cabrera DeBuc1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sensitivity of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images to identify retinal tissue morphology characterized by early neural loss from normal healthy eyes is tested by calculating structural information and fractal dimension. OCT data from 74 healthy eyes and 43 eyes with type 1 diabetes mellitus with mild diabetic retinopathy (MDR) on biomicroscopy was analyzed using a custom-built algorithm (OCTRIMA) to measure locally the intraretinal layer thickness. A power spectrum method was used to calculate the fractal dimension in intraretinal regions of interest identified in the images. ANOVA followed by Newman-Keuls post-hoc analyses were used to test for differences between pathological and normal groups. A modified p value of <0.001 was considered statistically significant. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to describe the ability of each parameter to discriminate between eyes of pathological patients and normal healthy eyes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25178846 PMCID: PMC4261615 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Reflectivity profile used to calculate the fractal dimension. The fractal dimension was calculated for the reflectivity profile within each intraretinal layer for each A-scan.
Figure 2Macular image segmentation results using OCTRIMA. (A) The image of a healthy macula scanned by Stratus OCT. (B) The same OCT scan processed with OCTRIMA. Abbreviations: Ch, choroid; GCL + IPL, ganglion cell layer and inner plexiform layer complex; INL, inner nuclear layer; ONL + IS, combined outer nuclear layer and inner segment of photoreceptors; OS, outer segment of photoreceptors; OPL, outer plexiform layer; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer; RPE, retinal pigment epithelial layer; V, vitreous.
Figure 3Flowchart of the detection of blood vessel shadows in OCT images.
Figure 4An example of the detection of the blood vessel shadows by the shadowgram technique. A) the raw OCT image of the macula. B) The same OCT image showing segmentation results after removal of speckle noise. C-D) Zoomed-in views of the shadowed regions are shown with the detected boundaries of blood vessel shadows.
Figure 5Flowchart describing the steps of the methodology.
Descriptive statistics of the study participants
| Characteristic | Controls | MDR |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 41 | 29 |
| Number of eyes | 74 | 43 |
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 34 ± 12 | 43 ± 17 |
| Female, N (% total eyes) | 52 (70%) | 21 (49%) |
| Race (% Caucasian) | 100 | 91 |
| Hemoglobin A1c level (%) | - | 8.51 ± 1.76 |
| DM duration (years, mean ± SD) | - | 22 ± 10 |
| IOP (mmHg, mean ± SD) | 14. 5 ± 1.23 | 15.09 ± 1.56 |
| BCVA | 1.0 ± 0.00 | 0.97 ± 0.06 |
| Total macular thickness (μm ± SD) | 324.36 ± 10.27 | 297.40 ± 21.79 |
Abbreviations: SD standard deviation, BCVA best corrected visual acuity.
Distribution statistics of thickness and fractal dimension
| Intraretinal layer | Thickness (microns) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy (mean ± SD) | MDR (mean ± SD) | AUROC (mean ± SE) | Asymptotic 95% confidence interval (Lower-upper bound) | Cutoff point | Positive likelihood ratio | |
| RNFL | 42.02 ± 2.11 | 41.38 ± 2.93 | 0.598 ± 0.059 | 0.483 - 0.713 | 41.03 | 1.51 |
| GCL + IPL | 78.30 ± 4.09 | 71.80 ± 8.22‡ | 0.756 ± 0.05 | 0.657 - 0.855 | 75.88 | 2.90 |
| INL | 35.02 ± 1.60 | 35.05 ± 2.76 | 0.508 ± 0.061 | 0.388 - 0.627 | 34.86 | 1.33 |
| OPL | 41.30 ± 2.49 | 36.07 ± 3.45‡ | 0.878 ± 0.041 | 0.797 - 0.958 | 38.24 | 6.48 |
| ONL + IS | 86.41 ± 5.21 | 88.39 ± 8.21 | 0.394 ± 0.055 | 0.285 - 0.503 | 86.86 | 1.07 |
| OS | 16.27 ± 3.06 | 14.40 ± 2.20‡ | 0.688 ± 0.049 | 0.591 - 0.784 | 14.59 | 8.22 |
| RPE | 12.71 ± 1.32 | 12.76 ± 1.09 | 0.481 ± 0.054 | 0.375 - 0.588 | 12.40 | 3.52 |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RNFL | 1.74 ± 0.04 | 1.78 ± 0.10‡ | 0.393 ± 0.056 | 0.284 ± 0.503 | 1.74 | 1.02 |
|
| 1.68 ± 0.01 | 1.58 ± 0.05 |
| 0.905 - 1.002 | 1.66 |
|
| INL | 1.78 ± 0.01 | 1.76 ± 0.03‡ | 0.785 ± 0.053 | 0.680 - 0.890 | 1.77 | 3.02 |
| OPL | 1.51 ± 0.01 | 1.56 ± 0.04‡ | 0.111 ± 0.041 | 0.031 - 0.190 | 1.52 | 1.02 |
| ONL + IS | 1.78 ± 0.03 | 1.79 ± 0.04 | 0.336 ± 0.055 | 0.228 - 0.444 | 1.78 | 2.96 |
| OS | 1.70 ± 0.02 | 1.73 ± 0.04‡ | 0.268 ± 0.047 | 0.177 - 0.359 | 1.71 | 1.00 |
| RPE | 1.68 ± 0.01 | 1.68 ± 0.01 | 0.433 ± 0.056 | 0.323 - 0.543 | 1.68 | 1.09 |
Note that mean ± SD, mean ± SE for groups (‡ p < 0.001, SD: standard deviation, SE: standard error), AUROC, cutoff point, confidence interval and positive likelihood ratio values are also included for each variable analyzed. The Fractal Dimension of the GCL+IPL layer had the highest discrimination value (shown in bold).
Figure 6ROC curve showing the results of the sensitivity and specificity test. The GCL + IPL complex was used for classifying diabetic retinal tissue with early neural loss based on fractal dimension in OCT images. The AUROC is calculated to be 0.96.