Over the past two decades a significant number of OCT segmentation approaches have been proposed in the literature. Each methodology has been conceived for and/or evaluated using specific datasets that do not reflect the complexities of the majority of widely available retinal features observed in clinical settings. In addition, there does not exist an appropriate OCT dataset with ground truth that reflects the realities of everyday retinal features observed in clinical settings. While the need for unbiased performance evaluation of automated segmentation algorithms is obvious, the validation process of segmentation algorithms have been usually performed by comparing with manual labelings from each study and there has been a lack of common ground truth. Therefore, a performance comparison of different algorithms using the same ground truth has never been performed. This paper reviews research-oriented tools for automated segmentation of the retinal tissue on OCT images. It also evaluates and compares the performance of these software tools with a common ground truth.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#21,637,273
of 32,950,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biophotonics
#856
of 2,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,472
of 329,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biophotonics
#24
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 329,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
