4.7 Review

A Review On digital image processing techniques for in-Vivo confocal images of the cornea

期刊

MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102188

关键词

Cornea; Confocal microscopy; Digital image processing; Review

资金

  1. Spe-cial Research Fund (BOF) of Ghent University, Belgium [01W03516]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review examines digital image processing for in vivo confocal microscopy images of the cornea, highlighting the lack of quantitative studies and standardization in the preprocessing stage. Most studies do not estimate the computational cost of image processing, indicating that reliable, automatic computer-assisted image analysis of the cornea remains an open issue.
This work reviews the scientific literature regarding digital image processing for in vivo confocal microscopy images of the cornea. We present and discuss a selection of prominent techniques designed for semi-and automatic analysis of four areas of the cornea (epithelium, sub-basal nerve plexus, stroma and endothelium). The main context is image enhancement, detection of structures of interest, and quantification of clinical information. We have found that the preprocessing stage lacks of quantitative studies regarding the quality of the enhanced image, or its effects in subsequent steps of the image processing. Threshold values are widely used in the reviewed methods, although generally, they are selected empirically and manually. The image processing results are evaluated in many cases through comparison with gold standards not widely accepted. It is necessary to standardize values to be quantified in terms of sensitivity and specificity of methods. Most of the reviewed studies do not show an estimation of the computational cost of the image processing. We conclude that reliable, automatic, computer-assisted image analysis of the cornea is still an open issue, constituting an interesting and worthwhile area of research. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据