4.6 Article

Signal Quality Assessment of Retinal Optical Coherence Tomography Images

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 2133-2141

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8755

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York
  2. National Institutes of Health [EY06594]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. The purpose of this article was to assess signal quality of retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) images from multiple devices using subjective and quantitative measurements. METHODS. A total of 120 multiframe OCT images from 4 spectral domain OCT devices (Cirrus, RTVue, Spectralis, and 3D OCT-1000) were evaluated subjectively by trained graders, and measured quantitatively using a derived parameter, maximum tissue contrast index (mTCI). An intensity histogram decomposition model was proposed to separate the foreground and background information of OCT images and to calculate the mTCI. The mTCI results were compared with the manufacturer signal index (MSI) provided by the respective devices, and to the subjective grading scores (SGS). RESULTS. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the paired methods (i.e., SGS and MSI, SGS and mTCI, and mTCI and MSI). Fisher's Z transformation indicated the Pearson correlation coefficient rho >= 0.8 for all devices. Using the Deming regression, correlation parameters between the paired methods were established. This allowed conversion from the proprietary MSI values to SGS and mTCI that are universally applied to each device. CONCLUSIONS. The study suggests signal quality of retinal OCT images can be evaluated subjectively and objectively, independent of the devices. Together with the proposed histogram decomposition model, mTCI may be used as a standardization metric for OCT signal quality that would affect measurements. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:2133-2141) DOI:10.1167/iovs.11-8755

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