Cargando…

Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy

PURPOSE: To determine the reliability of corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) obtained by automated specular microscopy versus that of validated manual methods and factors that predict such reliability. METHODS: Sharp central images from 94 control and 106 glaucomatous eyes were captured with Kona...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Jianyan, Maram, Jyotsna, Tepelus, Tudor C., Modak, Cristina, Marion, Ken, Sadda, SriniVas R., Chopra, Vikas, Lee, Olivia L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28797649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.06.001
_version_ 1783338702818246656
author Huang, Jianyan
Maram, Jyotsna
Tepelus, Tudor C.
Modak, Cristina
Marion, Ken
Sadda, SriniVas R.
Chopra, Vikas
Lee, Olivia L.
author_facet Huang, Jianyan
Maram, Jyotsna
Tepelus, Tudor C.
Modak, Cristina
Marion, Ken
Sadda, SriniVas R.
Chopra, Vikas
Lee, Olivia L.
author_sort Huang, Jianyan
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To determine the reliability of corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) obtained by automated specular microscopy versus that of validated manual methods and factors that predict such reliability. METHODS: Sharp central images from 94 control and 106 glaucomatous eyes were captured with Konan specular microscope NSP-9900. All images were analyzed by trained graders using Konan CellChek Software, employing the fully- and semi-automated methods as well as Center Method. Images with low cell count (input cells number <100) and/or guttata were compared with the Center and Flex-Center Methods. ECDs were compared and absolute error was used to assess variation. The effect on ECD of age, cell count, cell size, and cell size variation was evaluated. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the Center and Flex-Center Methods in corneas with guttata (p = 0.48) or low ECD (p = 0.11). No difference (p = 0.32) was observed in ECD of normal controls <40 yrs old between the fully-automated method and manual Center Method. However, in older controls and glaucomatous eyes, ECD was overestimated by the fully-automated method (p = 0.034) and semi-automated method (p = 0.025) as compared to manual method. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that automated analysis significantly overestimates ECD in the eyes with high polymegathism and/or large cell size, compared to the manual method. Therefore, we discourage reliance upon the fully-automated method alone to perform specular microscopy analysis, particularly if an accurate ECD value is imperative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6039579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60395792018-07-12 Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy Huang, Jianyan Maram, Jyotsna Tepelus, Tudor C. Modak, Cristina Marion, Ken Sadda, SriniVas R. Chopra, Vikas Lee, Olivia L. J Optom Original article PURPOSE: To determine the reliability of corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) obtained by automated specular microscopy versus that of validated manual methods and factors that predict such reliability. METHODS: Sharp central images from 94 control and 106 glaucomatous eyes were captured with Konan specular microscope NSP-9900. All images were analyzed by trained graders using Konan CellChek Software, employing the fully- and semi-automated methods as well as Center Method. Images with low cell count (input cells number <100) and/or guttata were compared with the Center and Flex-Center Methods. ECDs were compared and absolute error was used to assess variation. The effect on ECD of age, cell count, cell size, and cell size variation was evaluated. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the Center and Flex-Center Methods in corneas with guttata (p = 0.48) or low ECD (p = 0.11). No difference (p = 0.32) was observed in ECD of normal controls <40 yrs old between the fully-automated method and manual Center Method. However, in older controls and glaucomatous eyes, ECD was overestimated by the fully-automated method (p = 0.034) and semi-automated method (p = 0.025) as compared to manual method. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that automated analysis significantly overestimates ECD in the eyes with high polymegathism and/or large cell size, compared to the manual method. Therefore, we discourage reliance upon the fully-automated method alone to perform specular microscopy analysis, particularly if an accurate ECD value is imperative. Elsevier 2018 2017-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6039579/ /pubmed/28797649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.06.001 Text en © 2017 Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Spanish General Council of Optometry. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original article
Huang, Jianyan
Maram, Jyotsna
Tepelus, Tudor C.
Modak, Cristina
Marion, Ken
Sadda, SriniVas R.
Chopra, Vikas
Lee, Olivia L.
Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
title Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
title_full Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
title_fullStr Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
title_short Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
title_sort comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy
topic Original article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28797649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.06.001
work_keys_str_mv AT huangjianyan comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT maramjyotsna comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT tepelustudorc comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT modakcristina comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT marionken comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT saddasrinivasr comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT chopravikas comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy
AT leeolivial comparisonofmanualautomatedanalysismethodsforcornealendothelialcelldensitymeasurementsbyspecularmicroscopy