Ilaria Macchi1, Vatinee Y Bunya2, Mina Massaro-Giordano2, Richard A Stone2, Maureen G Maguire2, Yuanjie Zheng3, Min Chen4, James Gee5, Eli Smith2, Ebenezer Daniel6. 1. Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, University Campus Biomedico, Rome, Italy. 2. Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong Normal University, China; Shandong Normal University, School of Information Science and Engineering, Key Lab of Intelligent Computing & Information Security in Universities of Shandong, Institute of Life Sciences, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Distributed Computer Software Novel Technology, Key Lab of Intelligent Information Processing, Jinan, 250358, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Institute of Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: ebdaniel@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current scales for assessment of bulbar conjunctival redness have limitations for evaluating digital images. We developed a scale suited for evaluating digital images and compared it to the Validated Bulbar Redness (VBR) scale. METHODS: From a digital image database of 4889 color corrected bulbar conjunctival images, we identified 20 images with varied degrees of redness. These images, ten each of nasal and temporal views, constitute the Digital Bulbar Redness (DBR) scale. The chromaticity of these images was assessed with an established image processing algorithm. Using 100 unique, randomly selected images from the database, three trained, non-physician graders applied the DBR scale and printed VBR scale. Agreement was assessed with weighted Kappa statistics (Kw). RESULTS: The DBR scale scores provide linear increments of 10 from 10-100 when redness is measured objectively with an established image processing algorithm. Exact agreement of all graders was 38% and agreement with no more than a difference of ten units between graders was 91%. Kw for agreement between any two graders ranged from 0.57 to 0.73 for the DBR scale and from 0.38 to 0.66 for the VBR scale. The DBR scale allowed direct comparison of digital to digital images, could be used in dim lighting, had both temporal and nasal conjunctival reference images, and permitted viewing reference and test images at the same magnification. CONCLUSION: The novel DBR scale, with its objective linear chromatic steps, demonstrated improved reproducibility, fewer visualization artifacts and improved ease of use over the VBR scale for assessing conjunctival redness.
PURPOSE: Current scales for assessment of bulbar conjunctival redness have limitations for evaluating digital images. We developed a scale suited for evaluating digital images and compared it to the Validated Bulbar Redness (VBR) scale. METHODS: From a digital image database of 4889 color corrected bulbar conjunctival images, we identified 20 images with varied degrees of redness. These images, ten each of nasal and temporal views, constitute the Digital Bulbar Redness (DBR) scale. The chromaticity of these images was assessed with an established image processing algorithm. Using 100 unique, randomly selected images from the database, three trained, non-physician graders applied the DBR scale and printed VBR scale. Agreement was assessed with weighted Kappa statistics (Kw). RESULTS: The DBR scale scores provide linear increments of 10 from 10-100 when redness is measured objectively with an established image processing algorithm. Exact agreement of all graders was 38% and agreement with no more than a difference of ten units between graders was 91%. Kw for agreement between any two graders ranged from 0.57 to 0.73 for the DBR scale and from 0.38 to 0.66 for the VBR scale. The DBR scale allowed direct comparison of digital to digital images, could be used in dim lighting, had both temporal and nasal conjunctival reference images, and permitted viewing reference and test images at the same magnification. CONCLUSION: The novel DBR scale, with its objective linear chromatic steps, demonstrated improved reproducibility, fewer visualization artifacts and improved ease of use over the VBR scale for assessing conjunctival redness.
Authors: Vatinee Y Bunya; David H Brainard; Ebenezer Daniel; Mina Massaro-Giordano; William Nyberg; Elizabeth A Windsor; Denise J Pearson; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Richard A Stone Journal: Cornea Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Rohan Bir Singh; Lingjia Liu; Ann Yung; Sonia Anchouche; Sharad K Mittal; Tomas Blanco; Thomas H Dohlman; Jia Yin; Reza Dana Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 6.268
Authors: María Carmen Sánchez-González; Concepción De-Hita-Cantalejo; Concepción Martínez-Lara; José-María Sánchez-González Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-07-22