Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003938›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021

Reliability of Retinal Pathology Quantification in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Implications for Clinical Trials and Machine Learning Applications.

Philipp L Müller, Bart Liefers, Tim Treis, Filipa Gomes Rodrigues, Abraham Olvera-Barrios, Bobby Paul, Narendra Dhingra, Andrew Lotery, Clare Bailey, Paul Taylor and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Philipp L MüllerMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Bart LiefersMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Tim TreisBioQuant, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Filipa Gomes RodriguesMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abraham Olvera-BarriosMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Bobby PaulBarking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, UK.
Narendra DhingraMid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK.
Andrew LoteryUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Clare BaileyUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Paul TaylorInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Clarisa I SánchezDiagnostic Image Analysis Group, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Adnan TufailMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
University College London · GBBarking, Havering And Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBHeidelberg University · DEMid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBRadboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the interreader agreement for grading of retinal alterations in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using a reading center setting. Methods: In this cross-sectional case series, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT; Topcon 3D OCT, Tokyo, Japan) scans of 112 eyes of 112 patients with neovascular AMD (56 treatment naive, 56 after three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections) were analyzed by four independent readers. Imaging features specific for AMD were annotated using a novel custom-built annotation platform. Dice score, Bland-Altman plots, coefficients of repeatability, coefficients of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficients were assessed. Results: Loss of ellipsoid zone, pigment epithelium detachment, subretinal fluid, and drusen were the most abundant features in our cohort. Subretinal fluid, intraretinal fluid, hypertransmission, descent of the outer plexiform layer, and pigment epithelium detachment showed highest interreader agreement, while detection and measures of loss of ellipsoid zone and retinal pigment epithelium were more variable. The agreement on the size and location of the respective annotation was more consistent throughout all features. Conclusions: The interreader agreement depended on the respective OCT-based feature. A selection of reliable features might provide suitable surrogate markers for disease progression and possible treatment effects focusing on different disease stages. Translational Relevance: This might give opportunities for a more time- and cost-effective patient assessment and improved decision making as well as have implications for clinical trials and training machine learning algorithms.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsWet Macular DegenerationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansJapanMachine LearningReproducibility of ResultsTokyoTomography, Optical CoherenceVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID34003938
PMCPMC7938003
OpenAlexW3134485190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.