The Experts below are selected from a list of 274704 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Douglas R Anderson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd oct spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photographs of the optic disc
Ophthalmology, 2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Donald L Budenz, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:Objective To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. Design Evaluation of diagnostic technology. Participants One hundred nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. Methods Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. Main Outcome Measures Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. Results Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible (ICC, 0.96–0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80–0.88 for rim area and 0.95–0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. Conclusions Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression. Financial Disclosure(s) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd octtm spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photos of the optic disc
2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:OBJECTIVE—To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD-OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs, to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. DESIGN—Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS—119 healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 suspect eyes METHODS—Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by three individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD-OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SDOCT images were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS—Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD-OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square (RMS), and the standard deviation (SD) of the differences. © 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Correspondence: Douglas R. Anderson, M.D., Clinical Research Building (LOC: C-209), 1120 NW 14 Street, Room 1560G, Miami, FL 33136-2107. danderson@med.miami.edu. 1Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 2Presently at Lotus Eye Care Hospital, 770/12 Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore641014, India. Fax no. 0422-2627193. drashish79@hotmail.com. 3Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA 4Presently with Pixeleron (www.pixeleron.com). Contact at jonathan@pixeleron.com. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, May 2– 6, 2010. Disclosures: Jonathan D. Oakley was an employee of Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA, when this study was conducted. Douglas R. Anderson is a consultant for Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA. As co-authors these individuals participated in the study design, data collection, Analysis, reaching conclusions, and preparation of the manuscript. Industrial relationships : Jonathan Oakley, E, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin California. Douglas Anderson, C, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Ophthalmology. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 1. Published in final edited form as: Ophthalmology. 2011 July ; 118(7): 1348–1357. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008. N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript RESULTS—Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD-OCT, while cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between average photographic reading and SD-OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD-OCT was highly reproducible (ICC of 0.96 to 0.99). Each reader was also consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC 0.80 to 0.88 for rim area, 0.95 to 0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD-OCT. Measurements derived from SD-OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. CONCLUSIONS—Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD-OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD-OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD-OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression.
Ashish Sharma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd oct spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photographs of the optic disc
Ophthalmology, 2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Donald L Budenz, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:Objective To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. Design Evaluation of diagnostic technology. Participants One hundred nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. Methods Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. Main Outcome Measures Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. Results Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible (ICC, 0.96–0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80–0.88 for rim area and 0.95–0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. Conclusions Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression. Financial Disclosure(s) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd octtm spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photos of the optic disc
2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:OBJECTIVE—To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD-OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs, to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. DESIGN—Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS—119 healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 suspect eyes METHODS—Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by three individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD-OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SDOCT images were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS—Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD-OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square (RMS), and the standard deviation (SD) of the differences. © 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Correspondence: Douglas R. Anderson, M.D., Clinical Research Building (LOC: C-209), 1120 NW 14 Street, Room 1560G, Miami, FL 33136-2107. danderson@med.miami.edu. 1Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 2Presently at Lotus Eye Care Hospital, 770/12 Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore641014, India. Fax no. 0422-2627193. drashish79@hotmail.com. 3Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA 4Presently with Pixeleron (www.pixeleron.com). Contact at jonathan@pixeleron.com. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, May 2– 6, 2010. Disclosures: Jonathan D. Oakley was an employee of Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA, when this study was conducted. Douglas R. Anderson is a consultant for Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA. As co-authors these individuals participated in the study design, data collection, Analysis, reaching conclusions, and preparation of the manuscript. Industrial relationships : Jonathan Oakley, E, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin California. Douglas Anderson, C, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Ophthalmology. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 1. Published in final edited form as: Ophthalmology. 2011 July ; 118(7): 1348–1357. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008. N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript RESULTS—Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD-OCT, while cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between average photographic reading and SD-OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD-OCT was highly reproducible (ICC of 0.96 to 0.99). Each reader was also consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC 0.80 to 0.88 for rim area, 0.95 to 0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD-OCT. Measurements derived from SD-OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. CONCLUSIONS—Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD-OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD-OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD-OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression.
David Benavides - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
FLAME: a formal framework for the Automated Analysis of software product lines validated by Automated specification testing
Software & Systems Modeling, 2017Co-Authors: Amador Durán, Sergio Segura, Pablo Trinidad, David Benavides, Antonio Ruiz-cortésAbstract:In a literature review on the last 20 years of Automated Analysis of feature models, the formalization of Analysis operations was identified as the most relevant challenge in the field. This formalization could provide very valuable assets for tool developers such as a precise definition of the Analysis operations and, what is more, a reference implementation , i.e., a trustworthy, not necessarily efficient implementation to compare different tools outputs. In this article, we present the FLAME framework as the result of facing this challenge. FLAME is a formal framework that can be used to formally specify not only feature models, but other variability modeling languages (VML s) as well. This reusability is achieved by its two-layered architecture. The abstract foundation layer is the bottom layer in which all VML-independent Analysis operations and concepts are specified. On top of the foundation layer, a family of characteristic model layers —one for each VML to be formally specified—can be developed by redefining some abstract types and relations. The verification and validation of FLAME has followed a process in which formal verification has been performed traditionally by manual theorem proving, but validation has been performed by integrating our experience on metamorphic testing of variability Analysis tools, something that has shown to be much more effective than manually designed test cases. To follow this Automated, test-based validation approach, the specification of FLAME, written in Z, was translated into Prolog and 20,000 random tests were automatically generated and executed. Tests results helped to discover some inconsistencies not only in the formal specification, but also in the previous informal definitions of the Analysis operations and in current Analysis tools. After this process, the Prolog implementation of FLAME is being used as a reference implementation for some tool developers, some Analysis operations have been formally specified for the first time with more generic semantics, and more VML s are being formally specified using FLAME.
-
Automated Analysis in feature modelling and product configuration
International Conference on Software Reuse, 2013Co-Authors: David Benavides, Jose A Galindo, Alexander Felfernig, Florian ReinfrankAbstract:The Automated Analysis of feature models is one of the thriving topics of research in the software product line and variability management communities that has attracted more attention in the last years. A recent literature review reported that more than 30 Analysis operations have been identified and different Analysis mechanisms have been proposed. Product configuration is a well established research field with more than 30 years of successful applications in different industrial domains. Our hypothesis, that is not really new, is that these two independent areas of research have interesting synergies that have not been fully explored. To try to explore the potential synergies systematically, in this paper we provide a rapid review to bring together these previously disparate streams of work. We define a set of research questions and give a preliminary answer to some of them. We conclude that there are many research opportunities in the synergy of these independent areas.
-
Automated Analysis of feature models 20 years later a literature review
Information Systems, 2010Co-Authors: David Benavides, Sergio Segura, Antonio RuizcortesAbstract:Software product line engineering is about producing a set of related products that share more commonalities than variabilities. Feature models are widely used for variability and commonality management in software product lines. Feature models are information models where a set of products are represented as a set of features in a single model. The Automated Analysis of feature models deals with the computer-aided extraction of information from feature models. The literature on this topic has contributed with a set of operations, techniques, tools and empirical results which have not been surveyed until now. This paper provides a comprehensive literature review on the Automated Analysis of feature models 20 years after of their invention. This paper contributes by bringing together previously disparate streams of work to help shed light on this thriving area. We also present a conceptual framework to understand the different proposals as well as categorise future contributions. We finally discuss the different studies and propose some challenges to be faced in the future.
-
debian packages repositories as software product line models towards Automated Analysis
ACoTA, 2010Co-Authors: Jose A Galindo, David Benavides, Sergio SeguraAbstract:The Automated Analysis of variability models in general and feature models in particular is a thriving research topic. There have been numerous contributions along the last twenty years in this area including both, research papers and tools. However, the lack of realistic variability models to evaluate those techniques and tools is recognized as a major problem by the community. To address this issue, we looked for large– scale variability models in the open source community. We found that the Debian package dependency language can be interpreted as software product line variability model. Moreover, we found that those models can be automatically analysed in a software product line variability model-like style. In this paper, we take a first step towards the Automated Analysis of Debian package dependency language. We provide a mapping from these models to propositional formulas. We also show how this could allow us to perform Analysis operations on the repositories like the detection of anomalies (e.g. packages that cannot be installed).
-
FAMA: Tooling a Framework for the Automated Analysis of Feature Models
First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems VaMoS 2007 Limerick Ireland January 16-18 2007. Proceedings, 2007Co-Authors: David Benavides, Sergio Segura, Pablo Trinidad, Antonio Ruiz-cort´esAbstract:The Automated Analysis of feature models is recognized as one of the key challenges for Automated software de- velopment in the context of Software Product Lines (SPL). However, after years of research only a few ad-hoc propos- als have been presented in such area and the tool support demanded by the SPL community is still insufficient. In pre- vious work we showed how the selection of a logic repre- sentation and a solver to handle Analysis on feature models can have a remarkable impact in the performance of the Analysis process. In this paper we present a first imple- mentation of FAMA (FeAture Model Analyser). FAMA is a framework for the Automated Analysis of feature models in- tegrating some of the most commonly used logic represen- tations and solvers proposed in the literature. To the best of our knowledge, FAMA is the first tool integrating different solvers for the Automated analyses of feature models.
Joyce C Schiffman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd oct spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photographs of the optic disc
Ophthalmology, 2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Donald L Budenz, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:Objective To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. Design Evaluation of diagnostic technology. Participants One hundred nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. Methods Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. Main Outcome Measures Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. Results Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible (ICC, 0.96–0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80–0.88 for rim area and 0.95–0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. Conclusions Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression. Financial Disclosure(s) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd octtm spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photos of the optic disc
2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:OBJECTIVE—To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD-OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs, to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. DESIGN—Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS—119 healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 suspect eyes METHODS—Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by three individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD-OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SDOCT images were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS—Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD-OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square (RMS), and the standard deviation (SD) of the differences. © 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Correspondence: Douglas R. Anderson, M.D., Clinical Research Building (LOC: C-209), 1120 NW 14 Street, Room 1560G, Miami, FL 33136-2107. danderson@med.miami.edu. 1Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 2Presently at Lotus Eye Care Hospital, 770/12 Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore641014, India. Fax no. 0422-2627193. drashish79@hotmail.com. 3Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA 4Presently with Pixeleron (www.pixeleron.com). Contact at jonathan@pixeleron.com. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, May 2– 6, 2010. Disclosures: Jonathan D. Oakley was an employee of Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA, when this study was conducted. Douglas R. Anderson is a consultant for Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA. As co-authors these individuals participated in the study design, data collection, Analysis, reaching conclusions, and preparation of the manuscript. Industrial relationships : Jonathan Oakley, E, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin California. Douglas Anderson, C, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Ophthalmology. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 1. Published in final edited form as: Ophthalmology. 2011 July ; 118(7): 1348–1357. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008. N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript RESULTS—Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD-OCT, while cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between average photographic reading and SD-OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD-OCT was highly reproducible (ICC of 0.96 to 0.99). Each reader was also consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC 0.80 to 0.88 for rim area, 0.95 to 0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD-OCT. Measurements derived from SD-OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. CONCLUSIONS—Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD-OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD-OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD-OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression.
Jonathan D Oakley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd oct spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photographs of the optic disc
Ophthalmology, 2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Donald L Budenz, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:Objective To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. Design Evaluation of diagnostic technology. Participants One hundred nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. Methods Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. Main Outcome Measures Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. Results Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible (ICC, 0.96–0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80–0.88 for rim area and 0.95–0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. Conclusions Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression. Financial Disclosure(s) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
-
comparison of Automated Analysis of cirrus hd octtm spectral domain optical coherence tomography with stereo photos of the optic disc
2011Co-Authors: Ashish Sharma, Jonathan D Oakley, Joyce C Schiffman, Douglas R AndersonAbstract:OBJECTIVE—To evaluate a new Automated Analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD-OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs, to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. DESIGN—Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS—119 healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 suspect eyes METHODS—Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by three individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD-OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SDOCT images were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS—Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD-OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square (RMS), and the standard deviation (SD) of the differences. © 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Correspondence: Douglas R. Anderson, M.D., Clinical Research Building (LOC: C-209), 1120 NW 14 Street, Room 1560G, Miami, FL 33136-2107. danderson@med.miami.edu. 1Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 2Presently at Lotus Eye Care Hospital, 770/12 Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore641014, India. Fax no. 0422-2627193. drashish79@hotmail.com. 3Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA 4Presently with Pixeleron (www.pixeleron.com). Contact at jonathan@pixeleron.com. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, May 2– 6, 2010. Disclosures: Jonathan D. Oakley was an employee of Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA, when this study was conducted. Douglas R. Anderson is a consultant for Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, USA. As co-authors these individuals participated in the study design, data collection, Analysis, reaching conclusions, and preparation of the manuscript. Industrial relationships : Jonathan Oakley, E, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin California. Douglas Anderson, C, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Ophthalmology. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 1. Published in final edited form as: Ophthalmology. 2011 July ; 118(7): 1348–1357. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008. N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript RESULTS—Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD-OCT, while cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between average photographic reading and SD-OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD-OCT was highly reproducible (ICC of 0.96 to 0.99). Each reader was also consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC 0.80 to 0.88 for rim area, 0.95 to 0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD-OCT. Measurements derived from SD-OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. CONCLUSIONS—Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an Automated Analysis of SD-OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the Automated Analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD-OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of Automated measurement of SD-OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression.
