J L Lauermann1, M Treder1, M Alnawaiseh1, C R Clemens1, N Eter1, F Alten2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstrasse 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstrasse 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany. florian.alten@ukmuenster.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To expedite and to standardize the process of image quality assessment in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) using a specialized deep learning algorithm (DLA). METHODS: Two hundred randomly chosen en-face macular OCTA images of the central 3 × 3 mm2 superficial vascular plexus were evaluated retrospectively by an OCTA experienced reader. Images were defined either as sufficient (group 1, n = 100) or insufficient image quality (group 2, n = 100) based on Motion Artifact Score (MAS) and Segmentation Accuracy Score (SAS). Subsequently, a pre-trained multi-layer deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) was trained and validated with 160 of these en-face OCTA scans (group 1: 80; group 2: 80). Training accuracy, validation accuracy, and cross-entropy were computed. The DLA was tested in detecting 40 untrained OCTA images (group 1: 20; group 2: 20). An insufficient image quality probability score (IPS) and a sufficient image quality probability score (SPS) were calculated. RESULTS: Training accuracy was 97%, validation accuracy 100%, and cross entropy 0.12. A total of 90% (18/20) of the OCTA images with insufficient image quality and 90% (18/20) with sufficient image quality were correctly classified by the DLA. Mean IPS was 0.88 ± 0.21, and mean SPS was 0.84 ± 0.19. Discrimination between both groups was highly significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of the DLA was 90.0%, specificity 90.0%, and accuracy 90.0%. Coefficients of variation were 0.96 ± 1.9% (insufficient quality) and 1.14 ± 1.6% (sufficient quality). CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning (DL) appears to be a potential approach to automatically distinguish between sufficient and insufficient OCTA image quality. DL may contribute to establish image quality standards in this recent imaging modality.
PURPOSE: To expedite and to standardize the process of image quality assessment in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) using a specialized deep learning algorithm (DLA). METHODS: Two hundred randomly chosen en-face macular OCTA images of the central 3 × 3 mm2 superficial vascular plexus were evaluated retrospectively by an OCTA experienced reader. Images were defined either as sufficient (group 1, n = 100) or insufficient image quality (group 2, n = 100) based on Motion Artifact Score (MAS) and Segmentation Accuracy Score (SAS). Subsequently, a pre-trained multi-layer deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) was trained and validated with 160 of these en-face OCTA scans (group 1: 80; group 2: 80). Training accuracy, validation accuracy, and cross-entropy were computed. The DLA was tested in detecting 40 untrained OCTA images (group 1: 20; group 2: 20). An insufficient image quality probability score (IPS) and a sufficient image quality probability score (SPS) were calculated. RESULTS: Training accuracy was 97%, validation accuracy 100%, and cross entropy 0.12. A total of 90% (18/20) of the OCTA images with insufficient image quality and 90% (18/20) with sufficient image quality were correctly classified by the DLA. Mean IPS was 0.88 ± 0.21, and mean SPS was 0.84 ± 0.19. Discrimination between both groups was highly significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of the DLA was 90.0%, specificity 90.0%, and accuracy 90.0%. Coefficients of variation were 0.96 ± 1.9% (insufficient quality) and 1.14 ± 1.6% (sufficient quality). CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning (DL) appears to be a potential approach to automatically distinguish between sufficient and insufficient OCTA image quality. DL may contribute to establish image quality standards in this recent imaging modality.
Authors: Brandon J Lujan; Claire T Calhoun; Adam R Glassman; Joseph M Googe; Lee M Jampol; Michele Melia; Deborah K Schlossman; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Danuta M Sampson; Adam M Dubis; Fred K Chen; Robert J Zawadzki; David D Sampson Journal: Light Sci Appl Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 17.782
Authors: Rahul M Dhodapkar; Emily Li; Kristen Nwanyanwu; Ron Adelman; Smita Krishnaswamy; Jay C Wang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Henry H Li; Joseph R Abraham; Duriye Damla Sevgi; Sunil K Srivastava; Jenna M Hach; Jon Whitney; Amit Vasanji; Jamie L Reese; Justis P Ehlers Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.283