A Novel Hybrid Software-Assisted Method to Evaluate Quantitatively Corneal Endothelium From Light Microscopy Images.

IF 2.1 3区 工程技术 Q2 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY
Moreno Piaia, Umberto Rodella, Eugenio Ragazzi, Laura Giurgola, Claudio Gatto, Stefano Ferrari, Diego Ponzin, Jana D' Amato Tóthová
{"title":"A Novel Hybrid Software-Assisted Method to Evaluate Quantitatively Corneal Endothelium From Light Microscopy Images.","authors":"Moreno Piaia, Umberto Rodella, Eugenio Ragazzi, Laura Giurgola, Claudio Gatto, Stefano Ferrari, Diego Ponzin, Jana D' Amato Tóthová","doi":"10.1002/jemt.70079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Light (LM) and specular microscopies (SM) are standard techniques used by eye banks during corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) and morphology evaluation. This study aimed to develop a novel Hybrid method (HY) that integrates the benefits of both SM and LM while minimizing their drawbacks. A total of 283 endothelial images from LM and SM were analyzed from 31 corneas. For HY analysis, LM images were processed using SM-dedicated software to semi-automatically determine ECD, CV% (coefficient of variation), and HEX% (hexagonality). Agreements between LM, SM, and HY, as well as inter-operator bias, were assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. Evaluability of corneas with LM, SM, and HY was recorded during 311 examinations on 70 corneas. HY agreed with SM in ECD determination, while LM differed from HY (bias: 134 cells/mm<sup>2</sup>) and SM (bias: 115 cells/mm<sup>2</sup>). HY showed agreement with SM in HEX% determination, while a bias of 3.4% was observed in CV%. Inter-operator variability analysis showed significant differences in LM evaluations (ECD, EC morphology score). For HY, no significant inter-operator bias was obtained in ECD and HEX%, whereas CV% displayed a significant bias (3.1%). Corneal evaluability was significantly higher in LM and HY (both 96.5%) than in SM (72.7%). HY enabled quantitative ECD and morphology investigation of corneal endothelia using LM-obtained images. HY, SM, and LM techniques statistically agreed in ECD and morphology examinations, or showed clinically acceptable bias. The HY method demonstrated lower inter-operator variability than LM and higher evaluability than SM.</p>","PeriodicalId":18684,"journal":{"name":"Microscopy Research and Technique","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microscopy Research and Technique","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.70079","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Light (LM) and specular microscopies (SM) are standard techniques used by eye banks during corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) and morphology evaluation. This study aimed to develop a novel Hybrid method (HY) that integrates the benefits of both SM and LM while minimizing their drawbacks. A total of 283 endothelial images from LM and SM were analyzed from 31 corneas. For HY analysis, LM images were processed using SM-dedicated software to semi-automatically determine ECD, CV% (coefficient of variation), and HEX% (hexagonality). Agreements between LM, SM, and HY, as well as inter-operator bias, were assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. Evaluability of corneas with LM, SM, and HY was recorded during 311 examinations on 70 corneas. HY agreed with SM in ECD determination, while LM differed from HY (bias: 134 cells/mm2) and SM (bias: 115 cells/mm2). HY showed agreement with SM in HEX% determination, while a bias of 3.4% was observed in CV%. Inter-operator variability analysis showed significant differences in LM evaluations (ECD, EC morphology score). For HY, no significant inter-operator bias was obtained in ECD and HEX%, whereas CV% displayed a significant bias (3.1%). Corneal evaluability was significantly higher in LM and HY (both 96.5%) than in SM (72.7%). HY enabled quantitative ECD and morphology investigation of corneal endothelia using LM-obtained images. HY, SM, and LM techniques statistically agreed in ECD and morphology examinations, or showed clinically acceptable bias. The HY method demonstrated lower inter-operator variability than LM and higher evaluability than SM.

从光学显微镜图像定量评估角膜内皮的一种新型混合软件辅助方法。
光学显微镜(LM)和镜面显微镜(SM)是眼库在角膜内皮细胞密度(ECD)和形态学评估中使用的标准技术。本研究旨在开发一种新的混合方法(HY),将SM和LM的优点结合起来,同时最大限度地减少它们的缺点。我们分析了来自31个角膜的283张内皮图像。对于HY分析,LM图像使用sm专用软件进行处理,以半自动确定ECD, CV%(变异系数)和HEX%(六边形)。LM、SM和HY之间的一致性,以及操作员间的偏差,使用Bland-Altman分析进行评估。通过对70个角膜进行311次检查,记录了LM、SM和HY角膜的可评价性。在ECD测定中,HY与SM一致,而LM与HY(偏差:134个细胞/mm2)和SM(偏差:115个细胞/mm2)不同。HY与SM在HEX%的测定结果一致,而CV%的测定结果偏差为3.4%。操作者间变异性分析显示,LM评估(ECD, EC形态学评分)存在显著差异。对于HY,在ECD和HEX%中没有获得显著的操作员间偏差,而CV%显示出显著的偏差(3.1%)。LM和HY的角膜可评估性(均为96.5%)明显高于SM(72.7%)。HY能够使用lm获得的图像进行定量ECD和角膜内皮形态学研究。HY、SM和LM技术在ECD和形态学检查中具有统计学上的一致性,或者表现出临床可接受的偏倚。HY方法的算子间变异性比LM低,可评价性比SM高。
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
Microscopy Research and Technique
Microscopy Research and Technique 医学-解剖学与形态学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
233
审稿时长
4.7 months
期刊介绍: Microscopy Research and Technique (MRT) publishes articles on all aspects of advanced microscopy original architecture and methodologies with applications in the biological, clinical, chemical, and materials sciences. Original basic and applied research as well as technical papers dealing with the various subsets of microscopy are encouraged. MRT is the right form for those developing new microscopy methods or using the microscope to answer key questions in basic and applied research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信