4.6 Article

Automation improves repeatability of retinal oximetry measurements

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260120

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Automated measurements of retinal oximetry values are more repeatable compared to measurements where vessels are selected manually, with higher ICC values for the automated version than the semiautomatic version.
Purpose Retinal oximetry is a technique based on spectrophotometry where images are analyzed with software capable of calculating vessel oxygen saturation and vessel diameter. In this study, the effect of automation of measurements of retinal vessel oxygen saturation and vessel diameter is explored. Methods Until now, operators have had to choose each vessel segment to be measured explicitly. A new, automatic version of the software automatically selects the vessels once the operator defines a measurement area. Five operators analyzed image pairs from the right eye of 23 healthy subjects with semiautomated retinal oximetry analysis software, Oxymap Analyzer (v2.5.1), and an automated version (v3.0). Inter- and intra-operator variability was investigated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between oxygen saturation measurements of vessel segments in the same area of the retina. Results For semiautomated saturation measurements, the inter-rater ICC was 0.80 for arterioles and venules. For automated saturation measurements, the inter-rater ICC was 0.97 for arterioles and 0.96 for venules. For semiautomated diameter measurements, the inter-rater ICC was 0.71 for arterioles and venules. For automated diameter measurements the inter-rater ICC was 0.97 for arterioles and 0.95 for venules. The inter-rater ICCs were different (p < 0.01) between the semiautomated and automated version in all instances. Conclusion Automated measurements of retinal oximetry values are more repeatable compared to measurements where vessels are selected manually.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available