April 2010
Volume 51, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2010
Error in Retinal Thickness Compare Map of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S. kim
    Ophthalmology, Korea Univ. Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • J. Oh
    Ophthalmology, Korea Univ. Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • J.-H. Park
    Ophthalmology, Korea Univ. Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • S.-W. Kim
    Ophthalmology, Korea Univ. Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • J.-H. Oh
    Ophthalmology, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • K. Huh
    Ophthalmology, Korea Univ. Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S. kim, None; J. Oh, None; J.-H. Park, None; S.-W. Kim, None; J.-H. Oh, None; K. Huh, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2010, Vol.51, 4400. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S. kim, J. Oh, J.-H. Park, S.-W. Kim, J.-H. Oh, K. Huh; Error in Retinal Thickness Compare Map of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):4400.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To describe the rate and characteristics of errors in retinal thickness compare map of spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans.

Methods: : We retrospectively analyzed the compare map of OCT scans of patients who were imaged 2 or more times using Topcon 3D-OCT-1000.

Results: : One hundred sixty-five patients with compare map were included. Ninety-three compare maps were derived from patients with the two scans obtained at the same day and 72 were not. Errors were detected in 121 (57%) of the 165 compare maps. Time interval between two scans comprising compare map did not influence the incidence of error. Errors were classified to fixation error (8%) from fixation loss during the each scanning, matching error (23%) from mismatching of the centers of the two scans, and segmentation error (26%). Fixation error was characterized by horizontal line on the compare map. Matching error was noted by two symmetric configurations on the map. Compare maps with segmentation error showed abrupt localized change of thickness.

Conclusions: : Errors on compare map occur frequently with current segmentation and matching algorithms. They can be noticed with their characteristic configuration.

Keywords: imaging/image analysis: clinical • imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×