Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Transl Vis Sci TechnolSeptember 20216 citations

On Clinical Agreement on the Visibility and Extent of Anatomical Layers in Digital Gonio Photographs.

Peroni Andrea, Paviotti Anna, Campigotto Mauro, Abegão Pinto Luis, Cutolo Carlo Alberto, Shi Yue, Cobb Caroline, Gong Jacintha, Patel Sirjhun, Gillan Stewart


AI Summary

Ophthalmologists showed significant variability in identifying angle structures on digital gonioscopy, especially the ciliary body band and scleral spur. This highlights challenges for automated glaucoma diagnosis.

Abstract

Purpose

To quantitatively evaluate the inter-annotator variability of clinicians tracing the contours of anatomical layers of the iridocorneal angle on digital gonio photographs, thus providing a baseline for the validation of automated analysis algorithms.

Methods

Using a software annotation tool on a common set of 20 images, five experienced ophthalmologists highlighted the contours of five anatomical layers of interest: iris root (IR), ciliary body band (CBB), scleral spur (SS), trabecular meshwork (TM), and cornea (C). Inter-annotator variability was assessed by (1) comparing the number of times ophthalmologists delineated each layer in the dataset; (2) quantifying how the consensus area for each layer (i.e., the intersection area of observers' delineations) varied with the consensus threshold; and (3) calculating agreement among annotators using average per-layer precision, sensitivity, and Dice score.

Results

The SS showed the largest difference in annotation frequency (31%) and the minimum overall agreement in terms of consensus size (∼28% of the labeled pixels). The average annotator's per-layer statistics showed consistent patterns, with lower agreement on the CBB and SS (average Dice score ranges of 0.61-0.7 and 0.73-0.78, respectively) and better agreement on the IR, TM, and C (average Dice score ranges of 0.97-0.98, 0.84-0.9, and 0.93-0.96, respectively).

Conclusions

There was considerable inter-annotator variation in identifying contours of some anatomical layers in digital gonio photographs. Our pilot indicates that agreement was best on IR, TM, and C but poorer for CBB and SS.

Translational relevance: This study provides a comprehensive description of inter-annotator agreement on digital gonio photographs segmentation as a baseline for validating deep learning models for automated gonioscopy.


MeSH Terms

Anterior ChamberGonioscopyIrisPhotographyTrabecular Meshwork

Key Concepts5

The scleral spur (SS) showed the largest difference in annotation frequency (31%) and the minimum overall agreement in terms of consensus size (~28% of the labeled pixels) among five experienced ophthalmologists tracing anatomical layers in digital gonio photographs.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional studyn=5 ophthalmologists, 20 imagesCh4

Agreement among five experienced ophthalmologists on tracing anatomical layers in digital gonio photographs was lower for the ciliary body band (CBB) and scleral spur (SS), with average Dice score ranges of 0.61-0.7 and 0.73-0.78, respectively.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional studyn=5 ophthalmologists, 20 imagesCh4

Agreement among five experienced ophthalmologists on tracing anatomical layers in digital gonio photographs was better for the iris root (IR), trabecular meshwork (TM), and cornea (C), with average Dice score ranges of 0.97-0.98, 0.84-0.9, and 0.93-0.96, respectively.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional studyn=5 ophthalmologists, 20 imagesCh4

There was considerable inter-annotator variation in identifying contours of some anatomical layers in digital gonio photographs among five experienced ophthalmologists.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional studyn=5 ophthalmologists, 20 imagesCh4

A study quantitatively evaluated the inter-annotator variability of five experienced ophthalmologists tracing the contours of five anatomical layers (iris root (IR), ciliary body band (CBB), scleral spur (SS), trabecular meshwork (TM), and cornea (C)) in digital gonio photographs to provide a baseline for validating automated analysis algorithms.

MethodologyCross-sectionalCross-sectional studyn=5 ophthalmologists, 20 imagesCh4

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.