PURPOSE: To propose automatic segmentation algorithm (AUS) for corneal microlayers on optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. METHODS: Eighty-two corneal OCT scans were obtained from 45 patients with normal and abnormal corneas. Three testing data sets totaling 75 OCT images were randomly selected. Initially, corneal epithelium and endothelium microlayers are estimated using a corneal mask and locally refined to obtain final segmentation. Flat-epithelium and flat-endothelium images are obtained and vertically projected to locate inner corneal microlayers. Inner microlayers are estimated by translating epithelium and endothelium microlayers to detected locations then refined to obtain final segmentation. Images were segmented by trained manual operators (TMOs) and by the algorithm to assess repeatability (i.e., intraoperator error), reproducibility (i.e., interoperator and segmentation errors), and running time. A random masked subjective test was conducted by corneal specialists to subjectively grade the segmentation algorithm. RESULTS: Compared with the TMOs, the AUS had significantly less mean intraoperator error (0.53 ± 1.80 vs. 2.32 ± 2.39 pixels; P < 0.0001), it had significantly different mean segmentation error (3.44 ± 3.46 vs. 2.93 ± 3.02 pixels; P < 0.0001), and it had significantly less running time per image (0.19 ± 0.07 vs. 193.95 ± 194.53 seconds; P < 0.0001). The AUS had insignificant subjective grading for microlayer-segmentation grading (4.94 ± 0.32 vs. 4.96 ± 0.24; P = 0.5081), but it had significant subjective grading for regional-segmentation grading (4.96 ± 0.26 vs. 4.79 ± 0.60; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: The AUS can reproduce the manual segmentation of corneal microlayers with comparable accuracy in almost real-time and with significantly better repeatability. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The AUS can be useful in clinical settings and can aid the diagnosis of corneal diseases by measuring thickness of segmented corneal microlayers.
PURPOSE: To propose automatic segmentation algorithm (AUS) for corneal microlayers on optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. METHODS: Eighty-two corneal OCT scans were obtained from 45 patients with normal and abnormal corneas. Three testing data sets totaling 75 OCT images were randomly selected. Initially, corneal epithelium and endothelium microlayers are estimated using a corneal mask and locally refined to obtain final segmentation. Flat-epithelium and flat-endothelium images are obtained and vertically projected to locate inner corneal microlayers. Inner microlayers are estimated by translating epithelium and endothelium microlayers to detected locations then refined to obtain final segmentation. Images were segmented by trained manual operators (TMOs) and by the algorithm to assess repeatability (i.e., intraoperator error), reproducibility (i.e., interoperator and segmentation errors), and running time. A random masked subjective test was conducted by corneal specialists to subjectively grade the segmentation algorithm. RESULTS: Compared with the TMOs, the AUS had significantly less mean intraoperator error (0.53 ± 1.80 vs. 2.32 ± 2.39 pixels; P < 0.0001), it had significantly different mean segmentation error (3.44 ± 3.46 vs. 2.93 ± 3.02 pixels; P < 0.0001), and it had significantly less running time per image (0.19 ± 0.07 vs. 193.95 ± 194.53 seconds; P < 0.0001). The AUS had insignificant subjective grading for microlayer-segmentation grading (4.94 ± 0.32 vs. 4.96 ± 0.24; P = 0.5081), but it had significant subjective grading for regional-segmentation grading (4.96 ± 0.26 vs. 4.79 ± 0.60; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: The AUS can reproduce the manual segmentation of corneal microlayers with comparable accuracy in almost real-time and with significantly better repeatability. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The AUS can be useful in clinical settings and can aid the diagnosis of corneal diseases by measuring thickness of segmented corneal microlayers.
Entities:
Keywords:
OCT imaging; corneal microlayers; segmentation
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Mohamed Abou Shousha; Carol L Karp; Victor L Perez; Rodrigo Hoffmann; Roberta Ventura; Victoria Chang; Sander R Dubovy; Jianhua Wang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Francesco Larocca; Stephanie J Chiu; Ryan P McNabb; Anthony N Kuo; Joseph A Izatt; Sina Farsiu Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Taher K Eleiwa; Amr Elsawy; Zeba A Syed; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Ahmed M Sayed; Sonia H Yoo; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Taher Eleiwa; Amr Elsawy; Eyup Ozcan; Collin Chase; William Feuer; Sonia H Yoo; Victor L Perez; Mohamed F Abou Shousha Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ziying Ran; Joshua Moore; Fan Jiang; Hongmei Guo; Ashkan Eliasy; Bernardo T Lopes; FangJun Bao; Jun Jiang; Ahmed Abass; Ahmed Elsheikh Journal: R Soc Open Sci Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.963