ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
On Clinical Agreement on the Visibility and Extent of Anatomical Layers in Digital Gonio Photographs.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements in high-resolution imaging of the iridocorneal angle.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Comparison of Iridocorneal Angle Assessments in Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Patients: Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Gonioscopy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Moving beyond the Slit-Lamp Gonioscopy: Challenges and Future Opportunities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Semantic segmentation of gonio-photographs via adaptive ROI localisation and uncertainty estimation.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantitatively evaluate the inter-annotator variability of clinicians tracing the contours of anatomical layers of the iridocorneal angle on digital gonio photographs, thus providing a baseline for the validation of automated analysis algorithms. Methods: Using a software annotation tool on a common set of 20 images, five experienced ophthalmologists highlighted the contours of five anatomical layers of interest: iris root (IR), ciliary body band (CBB), scleral spur (SS), trabecular meshwork (TM), and cornea (C). Inter-annotator variability was assessed by (1) comparing the number of times ophthalmologists delineated each layer in the dataset; (2) quantifying how the consensus area for each layer (i.e., the intersection area of observers' delineations) varied with the consensus threshold; and (3) calculating agreement among annotators using average per-layer precision, sensitivity, and Dice score. Results: The SS showed the largest difference in annotation frequency (31%) and the minimum overall agreement in terms of consensus size (∼28% of the labeled pixels). The average annotator's per-layer statistics showed consistent patterns, with lower agreement on the CBB and SS (average Dice score ranges of 0.61-0.7 and 0.73-0.78, respectively) and better agreement on the IR, TM, and C (average Dice score ranges of 0.97-0.98, 0.84-0.9, and 0.93-0.96, respectively). Conclusions: There was considerable inter-annotator variation in identifying contours of some anatomical layers in digital gonio photographs. Our pilot indicates that agreement was best on IR, TM, and C but poorer for CBB and SS. Translational Relevance: This study provides a comprehensive description of inter-annotator agreement on digital gonio photographs segmentation as a baseline for validating deep learning models for automated gonioscopy.
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.