Impact of image selection on corneal nerve and dendritic cell density quantification using in vivo confocal microscopy

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ocular Surface Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jtos.2026.09.005
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,&nbsp;Karthikeyan Baskaran,&nbsp;Ava Dashti,&nbsp;Petros Moustardas,&nbsp;Antonio Filipe Macedo,&nbsp;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.
活体共聚焦显微镜成像选择对角膜神经和树突状细胞密度定量的影响。
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
Ocular Surface
Ocular Surface 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
14.10%
发文量
97
审稿时长
39 days
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
×
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
小红书