4.6 Article

Using ultra-widefield red channel images to improve the detection of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260383

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to investigate the utility of red channel fundus imaging in detecting ischemic status in eyes with CRVO. Results showed that red channel imaging had higher sensitivity in detecting ischemia compared to color fundus images, especially in non-rubeotic CRVO eyes.
Purpose To examine the usefulness of red channel fundus imaging to detect the ischemic status in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Methods Ultra-widefield (UWF) fundus images were obtained from 42 eyes with CRVO. Twenty-one eyes were ischemic, and 21 eyes were non-ischemic. Rubeosis was found in 11 ischemic eyes. UWF images were split into red and green channels using ImageJ software. Both the color and red channel images were used to predict the presence or absence of ischemia when examined by masked graders. The sensitivity and specificity of UWF imagings for the detection of ischemia were calculated in Group A (total 42 eyes), Group B (32 eyes excluding non-rubeotic ischemic CRVO) and Group C (31 eyes excluding rubeotic ischemic CRVO), respectively. Moreover, a linear mixed model was conducted to investigate the relationship between the type of images and the accuracy of prediction in each group. Results No significant difference in the sensitivity of color fundus imaging was seen between Group A and Group B. By contrast, a significant difference in the sensitivity of red channel imaging was seen between Group A and Group B (p = 0.031). The accuracies of the predictions were not associated with the type of image in Group A and Group B, but were significantly associated in Group C (p = 0.026). Conclusions UWF red channel imaging enabled more accurate detection of the ischemic status, compared with color fundus images, especially in non-rubeotic CRVO eyes.

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

4.6
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