Jenny Roth, Karthikeyan Baskaran, Ava Dashti, Petros Moustardas, Antonio Filipe Macedo, Neil Lagali
{"title":"Impact of image selection on corneal nerve and dendritic cell density quantification using in vivo confocal microscopy","authors":"Jenny Roth, Karthikeyan Baskaran, Ava Dashti, Petros Moustardas, Antonio Filipe Macedo, Neil Lagali","doi":"10.1016/j.jtos.2026.09.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>The aim of this study was to measure the impact of image selection on quantification of corneal nerve fibre length density (CNFL) and dendritic cell density (DCD) using in-vivo confocal microscopy images.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used images from 80 participants (mean age 51 years; 55 female), averaging 1030 images per participant. CNFL and DCD were quantified using independently selected sets and same-image sets. Inter-grader agreement was computed using 10 or 5 images per participant (patient-level data point). Grader agreement was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Using independently selected images, the ICC for CNFL was 0.82 with 10 images, which was significantly higher by 0.07 than with 5 images (p = 0.009). For DCD, the ICC was 0.92 with 10 images and was not significantly higher than with 5 images. Using same-image sets, the ICC for CNFL was 0.94 with both 5 and 10 images. For DCD, the ICC improved by 0.03 when 10 images were used compared with 5 images (p = 0.02).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Independent-image selection gives poorer reproducibility of CNFL and DCD than multiple graders using the same-image sets. The same-image sets yielded excellent agreement, suggesting that studies relying on a single selection of five or fewer images should be interpreted with caution, as a single selection is more prone to rater bias. Because a single set of selected images reflects real-world practice, we recommend that future studies use multiple graders, each independently selecting and grading images, with more than five images per participant where feasible.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54691,"journal":{"name":"Ocular Surface","volume":"42 ","pages":"Pages 287-294"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ocular Surface","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542012426001229","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim
The aim of this study was to measure the impact of image selection on quantification of corneal nerve fibre length density (CNFL) and dendritic cell density (DCD) using in-vivo confocal microscopy images.
Methods
We used images from 80 participants (mean age 51 years; 55 female), averaging 1030 images per participant. CNFL and DCD were quantified using independently selected sets and same-image sets. Inter-grader agreement was computed using 10 or 5 images per participant (patient-level data point). Grader agreement was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Results
Using independently selected images, the ICC for CNFL was 0.82 with 10 images, which was significantly higher by 0.07 than with 5 images (p = 0.009). For DCD, the ICC was 0.92 with 10 images and was not significantly higher than with 5 images. Using same-image sets, the ICC for CNFL was 0.94 with both 5 and 10 images. For DCD, the ICC improved by 0.03 when 10 images were used compared with 5 images (p = 0.02).
Conclusion
Independent-image selection gives poorer reproducibility of CNFL and DCD than multiple graders using the same-image sets. The same-image sets yielded excellent agreement, suggesting that studies relying on a single selection of five or fewer images should be interpreted with caution, as a single selection is more prone to rater bias. Because a single set of selected images reflects real-world practice, we recommend that future studies use multiple graders, each independently selecting and grading images, with more than five images per participant where feasible.
期刊介绍:
The Ocular Surface, a quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal, is an authoritative resource that integrates and interprets major findings in diverse fields related to the ocular surface, including ophthalmology, optometry, genetics, molecular biology, pharmacology, immunology, infectious disease, and epidemiology. Its critical review articles cover the most current knowledge on medical and surgical management of ocular surface pathology, new understandings of ocular surface physiology, the meaning of recent discoveries on how the ocular surface responds to injury and disease, and updates on drug and device development. The journal also publishes select original research reports and articles describing cutting-edge techniques and technology in the field.
Benefits to authors
We also provide many author benefits, such as free PDFs, a liberal copyright policy, special discounts on Elsevier publications and much more. Please click here for more information on our author services.
Please see our Guide for Authors for information on article submission. If you require any further information or help, please visit our Support Center