| Literature DB >> 31797646 |
Aviya Bennett1, Elnatan Davidovitch1, Yafim Beiderman1, Sergey Agadarov1, Yevgeny Beiderman1, Avital Moshkovitz2, Uri Polat2, Zeev Zalevsky1.
Abstract
Corneal thickness (CoT) is an important tool in the evaluation process for several disorders and in the assessment of intraocular pressure. We present a method enabling high-precision measurement of CoT based on secondary speckle tracking and processing of the information by machine-learning (ML) algorithms. The proposed configuration includes capturing by fast camera the laser beam speckle patterns backscattered from the corneal-scleral border, followed by ML processing of the image. The technique was tested on a series of phantoms having different thicknesses as well as in clinical trials on human eyes. The results show high accuracy in determination of eye CoT, and implementation is speedy in comparison with other known measurement methods.Entities:
Keywords: corneal thickness; imaging; lasers; machine learning; optics; secondary speckle patterns
Year: 2019 PMID: 31797646 PMCID: PMC7005539 DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.24.12.126001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Opt ISSN: 1083-3668 Impact factor: 3.170
Fig. 1Illustration of the proposed technique.
Fig. 2Schematic CNN architecture scheme.
Fig. 3Experimental setup for remote testing of tissue-like phantoms.
Tissue like phantoms experimental setup and measurement error.
| Test no. | Illumination wavelength (nm) | PhT range ( | Thickness increment ( | Exposure time (ms) | Resolution (pixel) | Mean abs. measurement error ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 532 | 450 to 800 | 50 | 0.35 | 0 | |
| 2 | 400 to 775 | 25 | 0.35 | 7.55 | ||
| 3 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.6 | 9.98 | ||
| 4 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.6 | 10.64 | ||
| 5 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.2 | 12.75 | ||
| 6 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.2 | 13.9 | ||
| 7 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.2 | 15.07 | ||
| 8 | 450 to 800 | 50 | 0.35 | 18.75 | ||
| 9 | 650 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.6 | 18.28 | |
| 10 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.6 | 20.07 | ||
| 11 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.2 | 20.69 | ||
| 12 | 400 to 800 | 25 | 0.2 | 25.19 |
Combined experiments setup summary.
| Test number | Combined experiments (from | Mean abs. measurement error ( |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 to 4 | 13.52 |
| 2 | 5 to 7 | 19.09 |
| 3 | 9 to 10 | 25.96 |
| 4 | 11 to 12 | 26.46 |
Fig. 4Result of eye CoT measurement by pachymetry.
Fig. 5Setup for measurement of corneal thick-CoT in the human eye.
Fig. 6Accuracy of network versus iteration while training.
Fig. 7Training results of phantoms regression network. Blue: training data fit. Black: test data fit.
Fig. 8Test data accuracy as a function of corneal thick-CoT threshold.
Results of training in additional data set.
| Experiment | Absolute mean error ( | RMSE | Test accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22.68 | 0.037 | 88.19 |
| 2 | 26.13 | 0.043 | 87.08 |
CoT pachymetry measurements on the 10 human eyes, . Each eye measured three times and the mean value, variance, and median were calculated.
| Eye no. | Measurement 1 | Measurement 2 | Measurement 3 | Mean value | Variance | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 691 | 689 | 687 | 689 | 4 | 689 |
| 2 | 689 | 708 | 687 | 694.67 | 134.33 | 689 |
| 3 | 721 | 732 | 723 | 725.33 | 34.33 | 723 |
| 4 | 709 | 710 | 719 | 712.67 | 30.33 | 710 |
| 5 | 737 | 696 | 716 | 716.33 | 420.33 | 716 |
| 6 | 732 | 691 | 736 | 719.67 | 620.33 | 732 |
| 7 | 748 | 745 | 736 | 743 | 39 | 745 |
| 8 | 752 | 741 | 747 | 746.67 | 30.33 | 747 |
| 9 | 658 | 702 | 657 | 672.33 | 660.33 | 658 |
| 10 | 658 | 657 | 654 | 656.33 | 4.33 | 657 |
Fig. 9Training results of human eyes regression network. Blue line: training data. Black line: validation data.
Validation results of network regression on human eyes.
| Test number | Absolute mean error ( | RMSE (root mean squared error) | Accuracy for 50 nm threshold error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27.42 | 0.045 | 89.26 |
| 2 | 26.10 | 0.048 | 84.82 |
Comparison between our technique and known methods.
| CoT measurement methods | OLCR | UP | SM | Pentacam | Our method SSP-based ML analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeatability (%) | 1.51 | 3.46 | 3.14 | 4.23 | N.A |
| Measurement time (s) | 18.5 | 5.6 | 13.5 | 45.7 | |
| Bland–Altman plot fit | Good fit for UP, Pentacam, and OLCR | Good fit for UP, Pentacam, and OLCR | Poor fit to other methods | Good fit for UP, Pentacam, and OLCR | Good fit for TOMEY TMS-5 |