Observational studyPloS one2020
Need for manual segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Value of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of deep learning-based retinal pigment epithelium segmentation for a widely used optical coherence tomography device.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of manual OCTA segmentation correction to improve image quality and visibility of choroidal neovascularization in AMD.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Association of Genetic Risk for Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Morphological Features of the Retinal Microvascular Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence and OCT Angiography in Full Thickness Macular Hole. New Developments for Personalized Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Segmentation Error Correction of the Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Images in Peer-Reviewed Studies.Journal of current ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the characteristics of eyes that had manual vs. automated segmentation of choroidal neovascular membrane (CNVM) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).
methodsAll patients with CNVM underwent OCTA using the Zeiss Angioplex Cirrus 5000. Slabs of the avascular outer retina, outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) region and choriocapillaris were generated. Manual segmentation was done when there were significant segmentation artifacts. Presence of activity of CNVM was adjudged by the presence of subretinal fluid (SRF) on structural OCT and was compared to activity detected on en face OCTA slabs based on well-defined criteria.
resultsEighty-one eyes of 81 patients were recruited of which manual segmentation was required in 46 (57%). Eyes with automated segmentation had significantly more CNVM in the ORCC (75%) whereas those with manual segmentation had deeper CNVM (sub-RPE = 22%, intra-PED = 22%) (p<0.001). Twenty eyes (25%) were found to have active CNVM on both the structural OCT and OCTA while an additional 19 eyes were presumed to have active CNVM on OCTA alone. There was only modest concordance between disease activity detected using structural OCT and OCTA (Kappa = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.64).
conclusionsManual segmentation of OCTA is required in more than 50% eyes with CNVM and this progressively increases with increasing depth of CNVM location from the ORCC to below the RPE. There is moderate concordance between OCTA and structural OCT in determining CNVM activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.