↓ Skip to main content

Choroidal thickness maps from spectral domain and swept source optical coherence tomography: algorithmic versus ground truth annotation

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Ophthalmology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Choroidal thickness maps from spectral domain and swept source optical coherence tomography: algorithmic versus ground truth annotation
Published in
British Journal of Ophthalmology, January 2016
DOI 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307985
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of the study was to create a standardised protocol for choroidal thickness measurements and to determine whether choroidal thickness measurements made on images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and swept source (SS-) OCT from patients with healthy retina are interchangeable when performed manually or with an automatic algorithm. 36 grid cell measurements for choroidal thickness for each volumetric scan were obtained, which were measured for SD-OCT and SS-OCT with two methods on 18 eyes of healthy volunteers. Manual segmentation by experienced retinal graders from the Vienna Reading Center and automated segmentation on >6300 images of the choroid from both devices were statistically compared. Model-based comparison between SD-OCT/SS-OCT showed a systematic difference in choroidal thickness of 16.26±0.725 μm (p<0.001) for manual segmentation and 21.55±0.725 μm (p<0.001) for automated segmentation. Comparison of automated with manual segmentations revealed small differences in thickness of -0.68±0.513 μm (p=0.1833). The correlation coefficients for SD-OCT and SS-OCT measures within eyes were 0.975 for manual segmentation and 0.955 for automatic segmentation. Choroidal thickness measurements of SD-OCT and SS-OCT indicate that these two devices are interchangeable with a trend of choroidal thickness measurements being slightly thicker on SD-OCT with limited clinical relevance. Use of an automated algorithm to segment choroidal thickness was validated in healthy volunteers.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Other 7 15%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,782,514
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Ophthalmology
#4,796
of 5,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,010
of 395,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Ophthalmology
#64
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 395,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.