4.6 Article

Tissue thickness calculation in ocular optical coherence tomography

期刊

BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 629-645

出版社

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/BOE.7.000629

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award [DE120101434]
  2. Australian Research Council [DE120101434] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thickness measurements derived from optical coherence tomography (OCT) images of the eye are a fundamental clinical and research metric, since they provide valuable information regarding the eye's anatomical and physiological characteristics, and can assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of numerous ocular conditions. Despite the importance of these measurements, limited attention has been given to the methods used to estimate thickness in OCT images of the eye. Most current studies employing OCT use an axial thickness metric, but there is evidence that axial thickness measures may be biased by tilt and curvature of the image. In this paper, standard axial thickness calculations are compared with a variety of alternative metrics for estimating tissue thickness. These methods were tested on a data set of wide-field chorio-retinal OCT scans (field of view (FOV) 60 degrees x 25 degrees) to examine their performance across a wide region of interest and to demonstrate the potential effect of curvature of the posterior segment of the eye on the thickness estimates. Similarly, the effect of image tilt was systematically examined with the same range of proposed metrics. The results demonstrate that image tilt and curvature of the posterior segment can affect axial tissue thickness calculations, while alternative metrics, which are not biased by these effects, should be considered. This study demonstrates the need to consider alternative methods to calculate tissue thickness in order to avoid measurement error due to image tilt and curvature. (C) 2016 Optical Society of America

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