IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0128925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Retinal Thickness Measurements between the Topcon Algorithm and a Graph-Based Algorithm in Normal and Glaucoma Eyes

Author

Listed:
  • Enting Gao
  • Binyao Chen
  • Jianling Yang
  • Fei Shi
  • Weifang Zhu
  • Dehui Xiang
  • Haoyu Chen
  • Mingzhi Zhang
  • Xinjian Chen

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the correlation and agreement between the Topcon built-in algorithm and our graph-based algorithm in measuring the total and regional macular thickness for normal and glaucoma subjects. Methods: A total of 228 normal eyes and 93 glaucomatous eyes were enrolled in our study. All patients underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examination and Topcon 3D-OCT 2000 scan. One eye was randomly selected for each subject. The thickness of each layer and the total and regional macular thickness on an Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart were measured using the Topcon algorithm and our three-dimensional graph-based algorithm. Correlation and agreement analyses between these two algorithms were performed. Results: Our graph search algorithm exhibited a strong correlation with Topcon algorithm. The macular GCC thickness values for normal and glaucoma subjects ranged from 0.86 to 0.91 and from 0.78 to 0.90, and the regional macular thickness values ranged from 0.79 to 0.96 and 0.70 to 0.95, respectively. Small differences were observed between the Topcon algorithm and our graph-based algorithm. The span of 95% limits of agreement of macular GCC thickness was less than 28 μm in both normal and glaucoma subjects, respectively. These limits of total and regional macular thickness were 15.5 μm and 23.1 μm for normal subjects and 29.1 μm and 46.4 μm for glaucoma subjects, respectively. Conclusion: Our graph-based algorithm exhibited a high degree of agreement with the Topcon algorithm with respect to thickness measurements in normal and glaucoma subjects. Moreover, our graph-based algorithm can segment the retina into more layers than the Topcon algorithm does.

Suggested Citation

  • Enting Gao & Binyao Chen & Jianling Yang & Fei Shi & Weifang Zhu & Dehui Xiang & Haoyu Chen & Mingzhi Zhang & Xinjian Chen, 2015. "Comparison of Retinal Thickness Measurements between the Topcon Algorithm and a Graph-Based Algorithm in Normal and Glaucoma Eyes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128925
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128925
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128925&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0128925?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eun Hee Hong & So Jung Ryu & Min Ho Kang & Mincheol Seong & Heeyoon Cho & Jong Hun Yeom & Yong Un Shin, 2019. "Comparison of repeatability of swept-source and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for measuring inner retinal thickness in retinal disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128925. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.