不同成像方法对地理萎缩自动分割的有效性比较。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Eye Pub Date : 2025-04-12 DOI:10.1038/s41433-025-03794-2
Maria Cristina Savastano, Emanuele Crincoli, Alfonso Savastano, Alessandro Gravina, Matteo Mario Carlà, Clara Rizzo, Raphael Kilian, Stanislao Rizzo
{"title":"不同成像方法对地理萎缩自动分割的有效性比较。","authors":"Maria Cristina Savastano, Emanuele Crincoli, Alfonso Savastano, Alessandro Gravina, Matteo Mario Carlà, Clara Rizzo, Raphael Kilian, Stanislao Rizzo","doi":"10.1038/s41433-025-03794-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare geographic atrophy (GA) size measured with fundus autofluorescence (FAF), near-infrared (N-IR) imaging, retromode (RM) imaging and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging and to compare accuracy of artificial intelligence(AI)-based automatic segmentation of GA with each method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Available good quality FAF, N-IR- RM and OCTA images acquired on the same date for each patient diagnosed with GA from 2022 to 2024 were retrospectively collected. Seventy(70)% of the images were used to train a Trainable Weka Segmenter (v 3.3.2) based on manual segmentation of GA and spurious areas performed by 2 different blinded expert graders for each of the 4 imaging modalities. For the remaining 30%(testing set), automatic measurement and manual measurement were compared to determine accuracy of the segmentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 157 eyes were included. Mean ground truth GA area (graders' manual contouring), mean automatic area and mean spurious area of testing set were significantly different with the 4 techniques(respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.002). Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) between manual and automatic measurements was 0.82 (0.78-0.84) for FAF model, 0.81 (0.78-0.82) for N-IR model, 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for RM model and 0.77 (0.73-0.81) for OCTA model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We report very good performance of automatic segmentation performed on FAF, N-IR and OCTA. A slight overestimation of GA area with automatic measurements would be considered when assessing GA area on FAF and N-IR imaging. RM imaging should not be considered as a valid method for automatic GA area assessment due to superiority of other available enface imaging techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of effectiveness of geographic atrophy automatic segmentation with different imaging methods.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Cristina Savastano, Emanuele Crincoli, Alfonso Savastano, Alessandro Gravina, Matteo Mario Carlà, Clara Rizzo, Raphael Kilian, Stanislao Rizzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41433-025-03794-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare geographic atrophy (GA) size measured with fundus autofluorescence (FAF), near-infrared (N-IR) imaging, retromode (RM) imaging and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging and to compare accuracy of artificial intelligence(AI)-based automatic segmentation of GA with each method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Available good quality FAF, N-IR- RM and OCTA images acquired on the same date for each patient diagnosed with GA from 2022 to 2024 were retrospectively collected. Seventy(70)% of the images were used to train a Trainable Weka Segmenter (v 3.3.2) based on manual segmentation of GA and spurious areas performed by 2 different blinded expert graders for each of the 4 imaging modalities. For the remaining 30%(testing set), automatic measurement and manual measurement were compared to determine accuracy of the segmentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 157 eyes were included. Mean ground truth GA area (graders' manual contouring), mean automatic area and mean spurious area of testing set were significantly different with the 4 techniques(respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.002). Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) between manual and automatic measurements was 0.82 (0.78-0.84) for FAF model, 0.81 (0.78-0.82) for N-IR model, 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for RM model and 0.77 (0.73-0.81) for OCTA model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We report very good performance of automatic segmentation performed on FAF, N-IR and OCTA. A slight overestimation of GA area with automatic measurements would be considered when assessing GA area on FAF and N-IR imaging. RM imaging should not be considered as a valid method for automatic GA area assessment due to superiority of other available enface imaging techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eye\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eye\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03794-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03794-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较眼底自体荧光(FAF)、近红外(N-IR)成像、逆模(RM)成像和光学相干断层扫描血管造影(OCTA)成像测量的地理萎缩(GA)大小,并比较基于人工智能(AI)的地理萎缩自动分割方法的准确性。方法:回顾性收集2022 - 2024年诊断为GA的每例患者同一天获得的高质量FAF、N-IR- RM和OCTA图像。70%的图像被用于训练一个可训练的Weka分割器(v 3.3.2),该分割器是由2个不同的盲法专家评分者对4种成像方式中的每一种进行的GA和假区域的手动分割。对于剩余的30%(测试集),将自动测量和人工测量进行比较,以确定分割的准确性。结果:共纳入157只眼。测试集的平均ground truth GA面积(评分员手动轮廓)、平均automatic面积和平均spurious面积在4种技术中分别有显著差异(p)。结论:我们报告了在FAF、N-IR和OCTA上进行的非常好的自动分割性能。在FAF和N-IR成像上评估遗传面积时,会考虑自动测量对遗传面积的略微高估。由于其他可用的面成像技术的优越性,RM成像不应被视为自动遗传区域评估的有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of effectiveness of geographic atrophy automatic segmentation with different imaging methods.

Purpose: To compare geographic atrophy (GA) size measured with fundus autofluorescence (FAF), near-infrared (N-IR) imaging, retromode (RM) imaging and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging and to compare accuracy of artificial intelligence(AI)-based automatic segmentation of GA with each method.

Methods: Available good quality FAF, N-IR- RM and OCTA images acquired on the same date for each patient diagnosed with GA from 2022 to 2024 were retrospectively collected. Seventy(70)% of the images were used to train a Trainable Weka Segmenter (v 3.3.2) based on manual segmentation of GA and spurious areas performed by 2 different blinded expert graders for each of the 4 imaging modalities. For the remaining 30%(testing set), automatic measurement and manual measurement were compared to determine accuracy of the segmentation.

Results: A total of 157 eyes were included. Mean ground truth GA area (graders' manual contouring), mean automatic area and mean spurious area of testing set were significantly different with the 4 techniques(respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.002). Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) between manual and automatic measurements was 0.82 (0.78-0.84) for FAF model, 0.81 (0.78-0.82) for N-IR model, 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for RM model and 0.77 (0.73-0.81) for OCTA model.

Conclusion: We report very good performance of automatic segmentation performed on FAF, N-IR and OCTA. A slight overestimation of GA area with automatic measurements would be considered when assessing GA area on FAF and N-IR imaging. RM imaging should not be considered as a valid method for automatic GA area assessment due to superiority of other available enface imaging techniques.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Eye
Eye 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
481
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Eye seeks to provide the international practising ophthalmologist with high quality articles, of academic rigour, on the latest global clinical and laboratory based research. Its core aim is to advance the science and practice of ophthalmology with the latest clinical- and scientific-based research. Whilst principally aimed at the practising clinician, the journal contains material of interest to a wider readership including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science worldwide. Eye is the official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Eye encourages the submission of original articles covering all aspects of ophthalmology including: external eye disease; oculo-plastic surgery; orbital and lacrimal disease; ocular surface and corneal disorders; paediatric ophthalmology and strabismus; glaucoma; medical and surgical retina; neuro-ophthalmology; cataract and refractive surgery; ocular oncology; ophthalmic pathology; ophthalmic genetics.
×
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