Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32196538›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Automated thresholding algorithms outperform manual thresholding in macular optical coherence tomography angiography image analysis.

Jan Henrik Terheyden, Maximilian W M Wintergerst, Peyman Falahat, Moritz Berger, Frank G Holz, Robert P Finger

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Acute Ocular Effects of Violet and Red Light Exposure in Young Adults.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  3. Myopia Prevalence, Ocular Metrics and Visual Activity in United States Optometry Students.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jan Henrik TerheydenDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0174-4066
Maximilian W M WintergerstDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Peyman FalahatDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Moritz BergerDepartment of Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Frank G HolzDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Robert P FingerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4253-7597

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor quantification of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) images, Vessel Density (VD) and Vessel Skeleton Density (VSD) are well established parameters and different algorithms are in use for their calculation. However, comparability, reliability and ability to discriminate healthy and impaired macular perfusion of different algorithms are unclear, yet, of potential high clinical relevance. Hence, we assessed comparability and test-retest reliability of the most common approaches. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo consecutive 3×3mm OCTA en face images of the superficial and deep retinal layer were acquired with swept-source OCTA. VD and VSD were calculated with manual thresholding and six automated thresholding algorithms (Huang, Li, Otsu, Moments, Mean, Percentile) using ImageJ and compared in terms of intra-class correlation coefficients, measurement differences and repeatability coefficients. Receiver operating characteristic analyses (healthy vs. macular pathology) were performed and Area Under the Curve (AUC) values were calculated.

resultsTwenty-six eyes (8 female, mean age: 47 years) of 15 patients were included (thereof 15 eyes with macular pathology). Binarization thresholds, VD and VSD differed significantly between the algorithms and compared to manual thresholding (p < 0.0001). Inter-measurement differences did not differ significantly between patients with healthy versus pathologic maculae (p ≥ 0.685). Reproducibility was higher for the automated algorithms compared to manual thresholding on all measures of reproducibility assessed. AUC was significantly higher for the Mean algorithm compared to the manual approach with respect to the superficial retinal layer.

conclusionsAutomated thresholding algorithms yield a higher reproducibility of OCTA parameters and allow for a more sensitive diagnosis of macular pathology. However, different algorithms are not interchangeable nor results readily comparable. Especially the Mean algorithm should be investigated in further detail. Automated thresholding algorithms are preferable but more standardization is needed for clinical use.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAngiographyAutomationFemaleHumansMacular DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID32196538
PMCPMC7083322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.