Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404857›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Evaluation of focus and deep learning methods for automated image grading and factors influencing image quality in adaptive optics ophthalmoscopy.

Danuta M Sampson, David Alonso-Caneiro, Avenell L Chew, Jonathan La, Danial Roshandel, Yufei Wang, Jane C Khan, Enid Chelva, Paul G Stevenson, Fred K Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Danuta M SampsonCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
David Alonso-CaneiroCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Avenell L ChewCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Jonathan LaCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Danial RoshandelCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Yufei WangDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1210 W Dayton St, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Jane C KhanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia.
Enid ChelvaDepartment of Medical Technology and Physics, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.
Paul G StevensonTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Fred K ChenCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia. fred.chen@lei.org.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptive optics flood illumination ophthalmoscopy (AO-FIO) is an established imaging tool in the investigation of retinal diseases. However, the clinical interpretation of AO-FIO images can be challenging due to varied image quality. Therefore, image quality assessment is essential before interpretation. An image assessment tool will also assist further work on improving the image quality, either during acquisition or post processing. In this paper, we describe, validate and compare two automated image quality assessment methods; the energy of Laplacian focus operator (LAPE; not commonly used but easily implemented) and convolutional neural network (CNN; effective but more complex approach). We also evaluate the effects of subject age, axial length, refractive error, fixation stability, disease status and retinal location on AO-FIO image quality. Based on analysis of 10,250 images of 50 × 50 μm size, at 41 retinal locations, from 50 subjects we demonstrate that CNN slightly outperforms LAPE in image quality assessment. CNN achieves accuracy of 89%, whereas LAPE metric achieves 73% and 80% (for a linear regression and random forest multiclass classifier methods, respectively) compared to ground truth. Furthermore, the retinal location, age and disease are factors that can influence the likelihood of poor image quality.

Identifiers

PMID34404857
PMCPMC8371000

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.