Tapan P Patel1, N Venkatesh Prajna2, Sina Farsiu3, Nita G Valikodath1, Leslie M Niziol1, Lakshey Dudeja2, Kyeong Hwan Kim1,4, Maria A Woodward1,5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Department of Cornea and Refractive Services, Aravind Eye Care System, Madurai, India. 3. Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, NC. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, South Korea. 5. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess variability in corneal ulcer measurements between ophthalmologists and reduce clinician-dependent variability using semiautomated segmentation of the ulcer from photographs. METHODS: Three ophthalmologists measured 50 patients' eyes for epithelial defects (EDs) and the stromal infiltrate (SI) size using slit-lamp (SL) calipers. SL photographs were obtained. An algorithm was developed for semiautomatic segmenting of the ED and SI in the photographs. Semiautomatic segmentation was repeated 3 times by different users (2 ophthalmologists and 1 trainee). Clinically significant variability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the percentage of pairwise measurements differing by ≥0.5 mm. Semiautomatic segmentation measurements were compared with manual delineation of the image by a corneal specialist (gold standard) using Dice similarity coefficients. RESULTS: Ophthalmologists' reliability in measurements by SL calipers had an ICC from 0.84 to 0.88 between examiners. Measurements by semiautomatic segmentation had an ICC from 0.96 to 0.98. SL measures of ulcers by clinical versus semiautomatic segmentation measures differed by ≥0.5 mm in 24% to 38% versus 8% to 28% (ED height); 30% to 52% versus 12% to 34% (ED width); 26% to 38% versus 10% to 32% (SI height); and 38% to 58% versus 14% to 34% (SI width), respectively. Average Dice similarity coefficients between manual and repeated semiautomatic segmentation ranged from 0.83 to 0.86 for the ED and 0.78 to 0.83 for the SI. CONCLUSIONS: Variability exists when measuring corneal ulcers, even among ophthalmologists. Photography and computerized methods for quantifying the ulcer size could reduce variability while remaining accurate and impact quantitative measurement endpoints.
PURPOSE: To assess variability in corneal ulcer measurements between ophthalmologists and reduce clinician-dependent variability using semiautomated segmentation of the ulcer from photographs. METHODS: Three ophthalmologists measured 50 patients' eyes for epithelial defects (EDs) and the stromal infiltrate (SI) size using slit-lamp (SL) calipers. SL photographs were obtained. An algorithm was developed for semiautomatic segmenting of the ED and SI in the photographs. Semiautomatic segmentation was repeated 3 times by different users (2 ophthalmologists and 1 trainee). Clinically significant variability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the percentage of pairwise measurements differing by ≥0.5 mm. Semiautomatic segmentation measurements were compared with manual delineation of the image by a corneal specialist (gold standard) using Dice similarity coefficients. RESULTS: Ophthalmologists' reliability in measurements by SL calipers had an ICC from 0.84 to 0.88 between examiners. Measurements by semiautomatic segmentation had an ICC from 0.96 to 0.98. SL measures of ulcers by clinical versus semiautomatic segmentation measures differed by ≥0.5 mm in 24% to 38% versus 8% to 28% (ED height); 30% to 52% versus 12% to 34% (ED width); 26% to 38% versus 10% to 32% (SI height); and 38% to 58% versus 14% to 34% (SI width), respectively. Average Dice similarity coefficients between manual and repeated semiautomatic segmentation ranged from 0.83 to 0.86 for the ED and 0.78 to 0.83 for the SI. CONCLUSIONS: Variability exists when measuring corneal ulcers, even among ophthalmologists. Photography and computerized methods for quantifying the ulcer size could reduce variability while remaining accurate and impact quantitative measurement endpoints.
Authors: Terry S Yoo; Michael J Ackerman; William E Lorensen; Will Schroeder; Vikram Chalana; Stephen Aylward; Dimitris Metaxas; Ross Whitaker Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2002
Authors: Sina Farsiu; Stephanie J Chiu; Rachelle V O'Connell; Francisco A Folgar; Eric Yuan; Joseph A Izatt; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 12.079
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: Christine M Toutain-Kidd; Travis C Porco; Eric M Kidd; M Srinivasan; Namperumalsamy V Prajna; Nisha Acharya; Thomas Lietman; Michael E Zegans Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Thomas Schultz; Johannes Birtel; Alexander K Schuster; Norbert Pfeiffer; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jessica Loo; Matthias F Kriegel; Megan M Tuohy; Kyeong Hwan Kim; Venkatesh Prajna; Maria A Woodward; Sina Farsiu Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Matthias F Kriegel; Jennifer Huang; Hamza A Ashfaq; Leslie M Niziol; Mohana Preethi; Huan Tan; Megan M Tuohy; Tapan P Patel; Venkatesh Prajna; Maria A Woodward Journal: Cornea Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.152
Authors: Matthias F Kriegel; Jessica Loo; Sina Farsiu; Venkatesh Prajna; Megan Tuohy; Kyeong Hwan Kim; Autumn N Valicevic; Leslie M Niziol; Huan Tan; Hamza A Ashfaq; Dena Ballouz; Maria A Woodward Journal: Cornea Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.152