Cargando…

Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis

(1) Background: Calculation of vessel density in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images with thresholding algorithms varies in clinical routine. The ability to discriminate healthy from diseased eyes based on perfusion of the posterior pole is critical and may depend on the algorithm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prangel, David, Prasuhn, Michelle, Rommel, Felix, Grisanti, Salvatore, Ranjbar, Mahdy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10004628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36902761
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12051973
_version_ 1784904880813506560
author Prangel, David
Prasuhn, Michelle
Rommel, Felix
Grisanti, Salvatore
Ranjbar, Mahdy
author_facet Prangel, David
Prasuhn, Michelle
Rommel, Felix
Grisanti, Salvatore
Ranjbar, Mahdy
author_sort Prangel, David
collection PubMed
description (1) Background: Calculation of vessel density in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images with thresholding algorithms varies in clinical routine. The ability to discriminate healthy from diseased eyes based on perfusion of the posterior pole is critical and may depend on the algorithm applied. This study assessed comparability, reliability, and ability in the discrimination of commonly used automated thresholding algorithms. (2) Methods: Vessel density in full retina and choriocapillaris slabs were calculated with five previously published automated thresholding algorithms (Default, Huang, ISODATA, Mean, and Otsu) for healthy and diseased eyes. The algorithms were investigated with LD-F2-analysis for intra-algorithm reliability, agreement, and the ability to discriminate between physiological and pathological conditions. (3) Results: LD-F2-analyses revealed significant differences in estimated vessel densities for the algorithms (p < 0.001). For full retina and choriocapillaris slabs, intra-algorithm values range from excellent to poor, depending on the applied algorithm; the inter-algorithm agreement was low. Discrimination was good for the full retina slabs, but poor when applied to the choriocapillaris slabs. The Mean algorithm demonstrated an overall good performance. (4) Conclusions: Automated threshold algorithms are not interchangeable. The ability for discrimination depends on the analyzed layer. Concerning the full retina slab, all of the five evaluated automated algorithms had an overall good ability for discrimination. When analyzing the choriocapillaris, it might be useful to consider another algorithm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10004628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100046282023-03-11 Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis Prangel, David Prasuhn, Michelle Rommel, Felix Grisanti, Salvatore Ranjbar, Mahdy J Clin Med Article (1) Background: Calculation of vessel density in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images with thresholding algorithms varies in clinical routine. The ability to discriminate healthy from diseased eyes based on perfusion of the posterior pole is critical and may depend on the algorithm applied. This study assessed comparability, reliability, and ability in the discrimination of commonly used automated thresholding algorithms. (2) Methods: Vessel density in full retina and choriocapillaris slabs were calculated with five previously published automated thresholding algorithms (Default, Huang, ISODATA, Mean, and Otsu) for healthy and diseased eyes. The algorithms were investigated with LD-F2-analysis for intra-algorithm reliability, agreement, and the ability to discriminate between physiological and pathological conditions. (3) Results: LD-F2-analyses revealed significant differences in estimated vessel densities for the algorithms (p < 0.001). For full retina and choriocapillaris slabs, intra-algorithm values range from excellent to poor, depending on the applied algorithm; the inter-algorithm agreement was low. Discrimination was good for the full retina slabs, but poor when applied to the choriocapillaris slabs. The Mean algorithm demonstrated an overall good performance. (4) Conclusions: Automated threshold algorithms are not interchangeable. The ability for discrimination depends on the analyzed layer. Concerning the full retina slab, all of the five evaluated automated algorithms had an overall good ability for discrimination. When analyzing the choriocapillaris, it might be useful to consider another algorithm. MDPI 2023-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10004628/ /pubmed/36902761 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12051973 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Prangel, David
Prasuhn, Michelle
Rommel, Felix
Grisanti, Salvatore
Ranjbar, Mahdy
Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis
title Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis
title_full Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis
title_short Comparison of Automated Thresholding Algorithms in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Analysis
title_sort comparison of automated thresholding algorithms in optical coherence tomography angiography image analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10004628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36902761
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12051973
work_keys_str_mv AT prangeldavid comparisonofautomatedthresholdingalgorithmsinopticalcoherencetomographyangiographyimageanalysis
AT prasuhnmichelle comparisonofautomatedthresholdingalgorithmsinopticalcoherencetomographyangiographyimageanalysis
AT rommelfelix comparisonofautomatedthresholdingalgorithmsinopticalcoherencetomographyangiographyimageanalysis
AT grisantisalvatore comparisonofautomatedthresholdingalgorithmsinopticalcoherencetomographyangiographyimageanalysis
AT ranjbarmahdy comparisonofautomatedthresholdingalgorithmsinopticalcoherencetomographyangiographyimageanalysis