ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Clinical application of automated optical coherence tomography angiography for retinal fluid segmentation: a study of real-world data.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Precise quantification of subretinal fluid (SRF) is crucial for the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC), yet the automated SRF segmentation function of the Intalight VG100 optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) device lacks real-world clinical validation. This study aimed to clinically validate the Intalight VG100 OCTA device's automated segmentation of SRF area and volume against physician annotations. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on OCTA images from 78 patients with CSC (139 eyes). The device's automated segmentation SRF area and volume were quantified via the VG100's companion software VanGoghReview, and physician-annotated segmentation served as the reference gold standard. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman rank correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare quantitative differences, assess correlations, and evaluate measurement agreement, respectively. Additionally, SRF area and volume error distributions were analyzed, with assessments stratified by lesion size (area: 0 mm Results: No significant difference in SRF area was noted between device's automated segmentation and the physician-annotated segmentation (P>0.05), while volume was significantly overestimated by the device (P<0.05). Both parameters exhibited excellent correlations (area: Spearman ρ=0.981; volume: ρ=0.995; both P values <0.05). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a low proportion of outliers, with 6.47% of samples for SRF area and 1.44% for SRF volume falling outside the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Compared to physician annotations, the device's automated segmentation underestimated SRF area by a mean of 0.25 mm Conclusions: This study is the first to evaluate the clinical application of the Intalight VG100's automated segmentation SRF with real-world data. Its SRF area quantification is reliable for small-to-moderate lesions, supporting routine clinical monitoring of CSC. In contrast, the device consistently overestimates volume quantification and yields considerable variability, necessitating manual verification for large lesions. These findings confirm the device's clinical utility and identify key directions for algorithm optimization.
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.