Laura Kuehlewein1, Amir H Hariri, Alexander Ho, Laurie Dustin, Yulia Wolfson, Rupert W Strauss, Hendrik P N Scholl, SriniVas R Sadda. 1. *Doheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California; †Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California; ‡Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; §Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and ¶Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate manual and semiautomated grading techniques for assessing decreased fundus autofluorescence (DAF) in patients with Stargardt disease phenotype. METHODS: Certified reading center graders performed manual and semiautomated (region finder-based) grading of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images for 41 eyes of 22 patients. Lesion types were defined based on the black level and sharpness of the border: definite decreased autofluorescence (DDAF), well, and poorly demarcated questionably decreased autofluorescence (WDQDAF, PDQDAF). Agreement in grading between the two methods and inter- and intra-grader agreement was assessed by kappa coefficients (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) area was 3.07 ± 3.02 mm for DDAF (n = 31), 1.53 ± 1.52 mm for WDQDAF (n = 9), and 6.94 ± 10.06 mm for PDQDAF (n = 17). The mean ± SD absolute difference in area between manual and semiautomated grading was 0.26 ± 0.28 mm for DDAF, 0.20 ± 0.26 mm for WDQDAF, and 4.05 ± 8.32 mm for PDQDAF. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for method comparison was 0.992 (0.984-0.996) for DDAF, 0.976 (0.922-0.993) for WDQDAF, and 0.648 (0.306-0.842) for PDQDAF. Inter- and intra-grader agreement in manual and semiautomated quantitative grading was better for DDAF (0.981-0.996) and WDQDAF (0.995-0.999) than for PDQDAF (0.715-0.993). CONCLUSION: Manual and semiautomated grading methods showed similar levels of reproducibility for assessing areas of decreased autofluorescence in patients with Stargardt disease phenotype. Excellent agreement and reproducibility were observed for well demarcated lesions.
PURPOSE: To evaluate manual and semiautomated grading techniques for assessing decreased fundus autofluorescence (DAF) in patients with Stargardt disease phenotype. METHODS: Certified reading center graders performed manual and semiautomated (region finder-based) grading of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images for 41 eyes of 22 patients. Lesion types were defined based on the black level and sharpness of the border: definite decreased autofluorescence (DDAF), well, and poorly demarcated questionably decreased autofluorescence (WDQDAF, PDQDAF). Agreement in grading between the two methods and inter- and intra-grader agreement was assessed by kappa coefficients (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) area was 3.07 ± 3.02 mm for DDAF (n = 31), 1.53 ± 1.52 mm for WDQDAF (n = 9), and 6.94 ± 10.06 mm for PDQDAF (n = 17). The mean ± SD absolute difference in area between manual and semiautomated grading was 0.26 ± 0.28 mm for DDAF, 0.20 ± 0.26 mm for WDQDAF, and 4.05 ± 8.32 mm for PDQDAF. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for method comparison was 0.992 (0.984-0.996) for DDAF, 0.976 (0.922-0.993) for WDQDAF, and 0.648 (0.306-0.842) for PDQDAF. Inter- and intra-grader agreement in manual and semiautomated quantitative grading was better for DDAF (0.981-0.996) and WDQDAF (0.995-0.999) than for PDQDAF (0.715-0.993). CONCLUSION: Manual and semiautomated grading methods showed similar levels of reproducibility for assessing areas of decreased autofluorescence in patients with Stargardt disease phenotype. Excellent agreement and reproducibility were observed for well demarcated lesions.
Authors: Rupert W Strauss; Beatriz Muñoz; Alexander Ho; Anamika Jha; Michel Michaelides; Artur V Cideciyan; Isabelle Audo; David G Birch; Amir H Hariri; Muneeswar G Nittala; SriniVas Sadda; Sheila West; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Irene Leung; Ferenc B Sallo; Roberto Bonelli; Traci E Clemons; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Emily Y Chew; Alan C Bird; Tunde Peto Journal: Retina Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Rupert W Strauss; Beatriz Muñoz; Alex Ho; Anamika Jha; Michel Michaelides; Saddek Mohand-Said; Artur V Cideciyan; David Birch; Amir H Hariri; Muneeswar G Nittala; SriniVas Sadda; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Stanley Lambertus; Nathalie M Bax; Ana Fakin; Joannes M M Groenewoud; B Jeroen Klevering; Anthony T Moore; Michel Michaelides; Andrew R Webster; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Carel B Hoyng Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Philipp L Müller; Maximilian Pfau; Matthias M Mauschitz; Philipp T Möller; Johannes Birtel; Petrus Chang; Martin Gliem; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Monika Fleckenstein; Frank G Holz; Philipp Herrmann Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Kaoru Fujinami; Rupert W Strauss; John Pei-Wen Chiang; Isabelle S Audo; Paul S Bernstein; David G Birch; Samantha M Bomotti; Artur V Cideciyan; Ann-Margret Ervin; Meghan J Marino; José-Alain Sahel; Saddek Mohand-Said; Janet S Sunness; Elias I Traboulsi; Sheila West; Robert Wojciechowski; Eberhart Zrenner; Michel Michaelides; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Patty P A Dhooge; Esmee H Runhart; Catherina H Z Li; Corrie M de Kat Angelino; Carel B Hoyng; Renate G van der Molen; Anneke I den Hollander Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rupert W Strauss; Beatriz Muñoz; Anamika Jha; Alexander Ho; Artur V Cideciyan; Melissa L Kasilian; Yulia Wolfson; SriniVas Sadda; Sheila West; Hendrik P N Scholl; Michel Michaelides Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 5.258