IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0155319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence and Distribution of Segmentation Errors in Macular Ganglion Cell Analysis of Healthy Eyes Using Cirrus HD-OCT

Author

Listed:
  • Rayan A Alshareef
  • Sunila Dumpala
  • Shruthi Rapole
  • Manideepak Januwada
  • Abhilash Goud
  • Hari Kumar Peguda
  • Jay Chhablani

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the frequency of different types of spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scan artifacts and errors in ganglion cell algorithm (GCA) in healthy eyes. Methods: Infrared image, color-coded map and each of the 128 horizontal b-scans acquired in the macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer scans using the Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) macular cube 512 × 128 protocol in 30 healthy normal eyes were evaluated. The frequency and pattern of each artifact was determined. Deviation of the segmentation line was classified into mild (less than 10 microns), moderate (10–50 microns) and severe (more than 50 microns). Each deviation, if present, was noted as upward or downward deviation. Each artifact was further described as per location on the scan and zones in the total scan area. Results: A total of 1029 (26.8%) out of total 3840 scans had scan errors. The most common scan error was segmentation error (100%), followed by degraded images (6.70%), blink artifacts (0.09%) and out of register artifacts (3.3%). Misidentification of the inner retinal layers was most frequent (62%). Upward Deviation of the segmentation line (47.91%) and severe deviation (40.3%) were more often noted. Artifacts were mostly located in the central scan area (16.8%). The average number of scans with artifacts per eye was 34.3% and was not related to signal strength on Spearman correlation (p = 0.36). Conclusions: This study reveals that image artifacts and scan errors in SD-OCT GCA analysis are common and frequently involve segmentation errors. These errors may affect inner retinal thickness measurements in a clinically significant manner. Careful review of scans for artifacts is important when using this feature of SD-OCT device.

Suggested Citation

  • Rayan A Alshareef & Sunila Dumpala & Shruthi Rapole & Manideepak Januwada & Abhilash Goud & Hari Kumar Peguda & Jay Chhablani, 2016. "Prevalence and Distribution of Segmentation Errors in Macular Ganglion Cell Analysis of Healthy Eyes Using Cirrus HD-OCT," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155319
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155319
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155319&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0155319?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.