May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
New Quality Assessment Parameters for OCT 3
H. Ishikawa; R. Hariprasad; G. Wollstein; L.A. Paunescu; L.L. Price; P.C. Stark; J.G. Fujimoto; J.S. Schuman
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • H. Ishikawa
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Eye Center, Boston, MA, United States
  • R. Hariprasad
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Eye Center, Boston, MA, United States
  • G. Wollstein
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Eye Center, Boston, MA, United States
  • L.A. Paunescu
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Eye Center, Boston, MA, United States
  • L.L. Price
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Eye Center, Boston, MA, United States
  • P.C. Stark
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Eye Center, Boston, MA, United States
  • J.G. Fujimoto
    Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
  • J.S. Schuman
    Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  H. Ishikawa, None; R. Hariprasad, None; G. Wollstein, None; L.A. Paunescu, None; L.L. Price, None; P.C. Stark, None; J.G. Fujimoto, Carl Zeiss Meditec F, P; J.S. Schuman, Carl Zeiss Meditec F, P.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI (R01-EY13178, R01-EY11289, P30-EY13078), MA Lions Eye Res Fund, Res to Prevent Blindness
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 3358. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      User Alerts
      You are adding an alert for:
      New Quality Assessment Parameters for OCT 3
      You will receive an email whenever this article is corrected, updated, or cited in the literature. You can manage this and all other alerts in My Account
      The alert will be sent to:
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation
      Citation

      H. Ishikawa, R. Hariprasad, G. Wollstein, L.A. Paunescu, L.L. Price, P.C. Stark, J.G. Fujimoto, J.S. Schuman; New Quality Assessment Parameters for OCT 3 . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):3358.

      Download citation file:

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

      ×
    • Get Permissions
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To develop a method to evaluate the quality of optical coherence tomography (OCT 3, Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, CA) images in a quantitative and objective fashion. Methods: Raw data files of OCT 3 images (linear macular scan, peripapillary circular scan, and optic nerve head scan) were exported to an IBM compatible PC. A software program of our own design analyzed the files and created histograms for each image. We defined 3 intensity levels on each histogram: Low Reflectivity was defined as the first percentile, Noise was defined as the 75th percentile, and Saturation was defined as the 99th percentile for pixel intensity. An Intensity ratio (IR) was defined as a ratio of Saturation and Low Reflectivity multiplied by 100, and a tissue signal ratio (TSR) was defined as a ratio of pixel population of the higher and the lower half of the range between Saturation and Noise. Finally, a quality index (QI) was defined as a product of IR and TSR. To evaluate the performance of these parameters, the outcome results were compared with subjective 3-level-grading (excellent, acceptable, and poor) that 3 OCT experts categorized. Since the OCT 3 system does not provide signal to noise ratio except for the peripapillary scan, we did not compare it with our parameters. Results: 63 images of 21 subjects (7 each for normal, early, and advanced glaucoma) were enrolled in this study. Subjects were selected in a consecutive and retrospective fashion from our OCT imaging database. All quality parameters showed significant differences among grading categories (all p<0.0001, ANOVA); the QI showed the least overlap between grades (IR>TSR>QI). Discriminating power (both excellent and acceptable grades were treated as acceptable) was highest with QI (area under ROC (receiver operator characteristic) curve 0.91 (IR), 0.96 (TSR), and 0.99 (QI)). Conclusions: A QI may permit automated objective, quantitative assessment of OCT image quality similar to that of an expert human observer.

Keywords: image processing • imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, S • imaging/image analysis: clinical 
© 2003, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of an abstract in any form must be obtained in writing from the ARVO Office prior to publication.
Copyright © 2024 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
×
×

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.

×
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.Accept