Comparison of Automated Versus Manual Analysis Programs for Quantification of Corneal Nerve Morphology in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Beyoglu Eye Journal Pub Date : 2024-12-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.14744/bej.2024.92063
Fahri Onur Aydin, Gamze Ozkan, Semra Akkaya Turhan, Ebru Toker
{"title":"Comparison of Automated Versus Manual Analysis Programs for Quantification of Corneal Nerve Morphology in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.","authors":"Fahri Onur Aydin, Gamze Ozkan, Semra Akkaya Turhan, Ebru Toker","doi":"10.14744/bej.2024.92063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the agreement between the automated analysis program and a manual program for quantification of corneal nerve morphology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven non-diabetic controls (mean age: 48.6±5.9 years) and 60 subjects with diabetes (mean age: 52.1±6.5 years) were enrolled. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and fiber length (CNFL) were quantified by the manual (CCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK) and automated program (ACCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK). Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess agreement between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in gender, age, total cholesterol, and LDL between the two groups, whereas BMI, HbA1c, and triglyceride were significantly higher and HDL was significantly lower in the T2DM group. CNFL was overestimated in the diabetic group and CNFD was underestimated in both groups with ACCMetrics (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). The Bland-Altman plots for both groups demonstrated good agreement for CNFL, with a wide limit of agreement (LoA) of 95% for CNFD and CNBD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Manual and fully automated protocols for sub-basal nerve evaluation had lower agreement in the measurement of CNFD and CNBD than CNFL in healthy controls and subjects with diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8740,"journal":{"name":"Beyoglu Eye Journal","volume":"9 4","pages":"202-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11849726/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beyoglu Eye Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2024.92063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the agreement between the automated analysis program and a manual program for quantification of corneal nerve morphology.

Methods: Twenty-seven non-diabetic controls (mean age: 48.6±5.9 years) and 60 subjects with diabetes (mean age: 52.1±6.5 years) were enrolled. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and fiber length (CNFL) were quantified by the manual (CCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK) and automated program (ACCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK). Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess agreement between the two methods.

Results: There were no differences in gender, age, total cholesterol, and LDL between the two groups, whereas BMI, HbA1c, and triglyceride were significantly higher and HDL was significantly lower in the T2DM group. CNFL was overestimated in the diabetic group and CNFD was underestimated in both groups with ACCMetrics (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). The Bland-Altman plots for both groups demonstrated good agreement for CNFL, with a wide limit of agreement (LoA) of 95% for CNFD and CNBD.

Conclusion: Manual and fully automated protocols for sub-basal nerve evaluation had lower agreement in the measurement of CNFD and CNBD than CNFL in healthy controls and subjects with diabetes.

比较自动和手动分析程序对 2 型糖尿病患者角膜神经形态的定量分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信