In this study, we employed fully automated and validated shadow compensation and binarization methods. Other attempts, for instance, those of Fabritius et al.
28 for shadow compensation and Kawano et al.
29 for binarization, were not fully automated and standardized. In particular, the method of Fabritius et al.
28 required to have an estimate (or localize) of segmented retinal vasculature of an en face image taken at the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) plane. Indeed, almost all other attempts toward quantifying choroid vascularity have mostly adopted the Image J–based method of Sonoda et al.,
30 which is semiautomated, subjective, and tedious.
30 In contrast, our approach is fully automated and algorithmic performance was validated.
31,32 Although CVI values remain precise within studies, accuracy with respect to any specified gold standard such as histology needs to be established.
18,21,33 For instance, Wei et al.
34 have compared two commonly used binarization techniques; neither of these was found to be superior, and agreement between them was low. The inherent flaw with these algorithms exists because CVI calculation is based on the simple assumption that dark areas (vascular lumen) and light areas (stroma) are the only two constituents of the choroid. This kind of binary arrangement has not been conclusively proven in histologic studies.
1 The choroidal tissue at the posterior pole is known to have a segmental pattern and lobular arrangement composed of centrally located venule with curved arterioles.
20 However, these features are not identifiable on cross-sectional OCT scans. Moreover, differences in segmentation and thresholding techniques lead to differences in estimation of the choroidal area and/or luminal area. This explains the wide difference in CVI in various studies.
16,26,33,35,36