↓ Skip to main content

In vivo assessment of retinal neuronal layers in multiple sclerosis with manual and automated optical coherence tomography segmentation techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
In vivo assessment of retinal neuronal layers in multiple sclerosis with manual and automated optical coherence tomography segmentation techniques
Published in
Journal of Neurology, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00415-012-6466-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela A. Seigo, Elias S. Sotirchos, Scott Newsome, Aleksandra Babiarz, Christopher Eckstein, E’Tona Ford, Jonathan D. Oakley, Stephanie B. Syc, Teresa C. Frohman, John N. Ratchford, Laura J. Balcer, Elliot M. Frohman, Peter A. Calabresi, Shiv Saidha

Abstract

Macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) segmentation, enabling quantification of retinal axonal and neuronal subpopulations, may help elucidate the neuroretinal pathobiology of multiple sclerosis (MS). This study aimed to determine the agreement, reproducibility, and visual correlations of retinal layer thicknesses measured by different OCT segmentation techniques, on two spectral-domain OCT devices. Macular scans of 52 MS patients and 30 healthy controls from Spectralis OCT and Cirrus HD-OCT were segmented using fully manual (Spectralis), computer-aided manual (Spectralis and Cirrus), and fully automated (Cirrus) segmentation techniques. Letter acuity was recorded. Bland-Altman analyses revealed low mean differences across OCT segmentation techniques on both devices for ganglion cell + inner plexiform layers (GCIP; 0.76-2.43 μm), inner nuclear + outer plexiform layers (INL + OPL; 0.36-1.04 μm), and outer nuclear layers including photoreceptor segment (ONL + PR; 1.29-3.52 μm) thicknesses. Limits of agreement for GCIP and ONL + PR thicknesses were narrow. Results of fully manual and computer-aided manual segmentation were comparable to those of fully automated segmentation. MS patients demonstrated macular RNFL, GCIP, and ONL + PR thinning compared to healthy controls across OCT segmentation techniques, irrespective of device (p < 0.03 for all). Low-contrast letter acuity in MS correlated significantly and more strongly with GCIP than peripapillary RNFL thicknesses, regardless of the segmentation method or device. GCIP and ONL + PR thicknesses, measured by different OCT devices and segmentation techniques, are reproducible and agree at the individual and cohort levels. GCIP thinning in MS correlates with visual dysfunction. Significant ONL + PR thinning, detectable across OCT segmentation techniques and devices, strongly supports ONL pathology in MS. Fully automated, fully manual and computer-assisted manual OCT segmentation techniques compare closely, highlighting the utility of accurate and time-efficient automated segmentation outcomes in MS clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 72 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Other 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 53%
Neuroscience 8 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2012.
All research outputs
#5,504,766
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,328
of 4,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,386
of 156,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.