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。
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.
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.