Qualitative and quantitative comparison of two semi-manual retinal vascular density analyzing methods on optical coherence tomography angiography images of healthy individuals
The aim of this study was to evaluate qualitative and quantitative differences in vascular density analysis of an established and a novel alternative for post-processing on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images in healthy individuals. OCTA examinations of 38 subjects were performed....
Saved in:
| Published in: | Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 16981 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
09-10-2023
Nature Publishing Group Nature Portfolio |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The aim of this study was to evaluate qualitative and quantitative differences in vascular density analysis of an established and a novel alternative for post-processing on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images in healthy individuals. OCTA examinations of 38 subjects were performed. After extracting the images, two semi-manual post-processing techniques, the already established Mexican hat filtering (MHF) and an alternative, the Shanbhag thresholding (ST) were applied. We assessed Vessel Density (VD), Skeleton Density (SkD) and Vessel Diameter Index (VDI). We analyzed the results in order to establish similarities or potentially relevant differences. Regarding SkD and VD, MHF generally gave higher values than ST. Simultaneously, mean values were also predominantly higher by MHF; however, standard deviations (SD) were higher by ST (range [mean ± SD]: 0.054 ± 0.038 to 0.134 ± 0.01 and 0.134 ± 0.095 to 0.362 ± 0.028 vs 0.012 ± 0.014 to 0.087 ± 0.03 and 0.039 ± 0.047 to 0.4 ± 0.095 for SkD and VD with MHF vs SkD and VD with ST, respectively). Values of VDI were considerably higher with ST than with MHF, while standard deviation was still significantly higher with ST (range [mean ± SD]: 2.459 ± 0.144 to 2.71 ± 0.084 and 2.983 ± 0.929 to 5.19 ± 1.064 for VDI with MHF and ST, respectively). The noise level reduction of the two methods were almost identical (noise levels: 65.8% with MHT and 65.24% with ST). Using MHF, the vascular network gets more fragmented by an average of 40% compared to ST. Both methods allow the segmentation of the vascular network and the examination of vascular density parameters, but they produce largely inconsistent results. To determine if these inconsistent results are clinically meaningful, and which method is more suitable for clinical use, our results provide further evidence that detailed understanding of the image analysis method is essential for reliable decision making for patients with retinal pathology. For longitudinal monitoring, use of the same image processing method is recommended. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41598-023-44234-z |