Image Scaling Difference Between a Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope and a Flash Fundus Camera
Copyright 2015, SLACK Incorporated..
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate scaling and measurement differences between flash and scanning laser fundus images.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors analyzed fundus autofluorescence images of patients with geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration imaged with both 30º confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and 50º flash fundus camera (FFC). Multiple vessel-crossing points served as landmarks.
RESULTS: The mean (±SD; range) scaling factor between cSLO and FFC images (by GRADOR) for the horizontal dimension was 1.217 (±0.0487; 1.0474-1.272) versus 1.138 (±0.0311; 1.0841-1.193) for the vertical dimension. The mean percentage difference between horizontal and vertical scaling factors was 7.48 (±2.29; 2.30-10.70). Refractive error (focus) and aperture size (or field of view of the image) were positively correlated and aspect ratio was negatively correlated with landmark pair measurements.
CONCLUSION: Inherent image-scaling differences between fundus autofluorescence imaging systems are not restricted to simple pixel-to-millimeter calibration variances, but appear to vary depending on measurement orientation. Differences should be considered when comparing measurements obtained using different imaging systems, particularly for clinical trials.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2015 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:46 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina - 46(2015), 8 vom: 27. Sept., Seite 872-9 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Nittala, Muneeswar G [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Comparative Study |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 29.04.2016 Date Revised 03.10.2015 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3928/23258160-20150909-13 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM253338735 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM253338735 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224170018.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3928/23258160-20150909-13 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0844.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM253338735 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)26431304 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Nittala, Muneeswar G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Image Scaling Difference Between a Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope and a Flash Fundus Camera |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 29.04.2016 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 03.10.2015 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright 2015, SLACK Incorporated. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate scaling and measurement differences between flash and scanning laser fundus images | ||
| 520 | |a PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors analyzed fundus autofluorescence images of patients with geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration imaged with both 30º confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and 50º flash fundus camera (FFC). Multiple vessel-crossing points served as landmarks | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: The mean (±SD; range) scaling factor between cSLO and FFC images (by GRADOR) for the horizontal dimension was 1.217 (±0.0487; 1.0474-1.272) versus 1.138 (±0.0311; 1.0841-1.193) for the vertical dimension. The mean percentage difference between horizontal and vertical scaling factors was 7.48 (±2.29; 2.30-10.70). Refractive error (focus) and aperture size (or field of view of the image) were positively correlated and aspect ratio was negatively correlated with landmark pair measurements | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Inherent image-scaling differences between fundus autofluorescence imaging systems are not restricted to simple pixel-to-millimeter calibration variances, but appear to vary depending on measurement orientation. Differences should be considered when comparing measurements obtained using different imaging systems, particularly for clinical trials | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hariri, Amirhossein |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wong, Wai T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chew, Emily Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ferris, Frederick L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sadda, Srinivas R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina |d 2013 |g 46(2015), 8 vom: 27. Sept., Seite 872-9 |w (DE-627)NLM224956647 |x 2325-8179 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:46 |g year:2015 |g number:8 |g day:27 |g month:09 |g pages:872-9 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20150909-13 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 46 |j 2015 |e 8 |b 27 |c 09 |h 872-9 | ||