4.6 Article

Correlation between AI-measured lacquer cracks extension and development of myopic choroidal neovascularization

期刊

EYE
卷 37, 期 14, 页码 2963-2968

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-023-02451-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the correlation between the AI-measured area of the lacquer cracks (LC) and the occurrence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in pathologic myopia patients. The study found that larger LC area is associated with a higher probability of CNV development, and the faster the increase in LC area, the earlier the onset of CNV.
ObjectivesTo investigate the correlation between the AI-measured area of the lacquer cracks (LC) at their first detection and the occurrence of a choroidal neovascularization (CNV) during the follow-up in patients affected by pathologic myopia. Secondary outcome was the detection of a correlation between the time to onset of CNV with both baseline LC area and LC area increase during follow-up.MethodsOptical coherence tomography (OCT) acquisitions of patients diagnosed with LC were retrospectively analysed. The study population was divided in a CNV group (showing the documented onset of a CNV) and a n-CNV group (no CNV development during follow-up). LC area was measured using MatLab software after the application of a customized method for LC segmentation on infrared (IR) enface images.ResultsForty-five (45) patients with a mean follow-up of 4.9 +/- 1.5 years were included. LC area at baseline was 2.82 +/- 0.54 mm(2) and 1.70 +/- 0.49 mm(2) in CNV (20 patients) and n-CNV group (25 patients) group respectively (p < 0.001). LC area increase was significantly higher in CNV group (p < 0.001). Time to onset of CNV was linearly correlated with both LC area at baseline (p = 0.006) and LC area increase (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMyopic CNV development is associated with lager LC areas and higher LC area increase during time. Earlier CNV onset is inversely correlated with LC area and LC area increase.

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