Comparison of Automated Versus Manual Analysis Programs for Quantification of Corneal Nerve Morphology in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Beyoglu Eye Journal Pub Date : 2024-12-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.14744/bej.2024.92063
Fahri Onur Aydin, Gamze Ozkan, Semra Akkaya Turhan, Ebru Toker
{"title":"Comparison of Automated Versus Manual Analysis Programs for Quantification of Corneal Nerve Morphology in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.","authors":"Fahri Onur Aydin, Gamze Ozkan, Semra Akkaya Turhan, Ebru Toker","doi":"10.14744/bej.2024.92063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the agreement between the automated analysis program and a manual program for quantification of corneal nerve morphology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven non-diabetic controls (mean age: 48.6±5.9 years) and 60 subjects with diabetes (mean age: 52.1±6.5 years) were enrolled. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and fiber length (CNFL) were quantified by the manual (CCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK) and automated program (ACCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK). Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess agreement between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in gender, age, total cholesterol, and LDL between the two groups, whereas BMI, HbA1c, and triglyceride were significantly higher and HDL was significantly lower in the T2DM group. CNFL was overestimated in the diabetic group and CNFD was underestimated in both groups with ACCMetrics (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). The Bland-Altman plots for both groups demonstrated good agreement for CNFL, with a wide limit of agreement (LoA) of 95% for CNFD and CNBD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Manual and fully automated protocols for sub-basal nerve evaluation had lower agreement in the measurement of CNFD and CNBD than CNFL in healthy controls and subjects with diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8740,"journal":{"name":"Beyoglu Eye Journal","volume":"9 4","pages":"202-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11849726/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beyoglu Eye Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2024.92063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the agreement between the automated analysis program and a manual program for quantification of corneal nerve morphology.

Methods: Twenty-seven non-diabetic controls (mean age: 48.6±5.9 years) and 60 subjects with diabetes (mean age: 52.1±6.5 years) were enrolled. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and fiber length (CNFL) were quantified by the manual (CCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK) and automated program (ACCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK). Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess agreement between the two methods.

Results: There were no differences in gender, age, total cholesterol, and LDL between the two groups, whereas BMI, HbA1c, and triglyceride were significantly higher and HDL was significantly lower in the T2DM group. CNFL was overestimated in the diabetic group and CNFD was underestimated in both groups with ACCMetrics (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). The Bland-Altman plots for both groups demonstrated good agreement for CNFL, with a wide limit of agreement (LoA) of 95% for CNFD and CNBD.

Conclusion: Manual and fully automated protocols for sub-basal nerve evaluation had lower agreement in the measurement of CNFD and CNBD than CNFL in healthy controls and subjects with diabetes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较自动和手动分析程序对 2 型糖尿病患者角膜神经形态的定量分析。
目的:评估角膜神经形态学定量的自动分析程序和人工程序之间的一致性。方法:纳入27例非糖尿病对照组(平均年龄:48.6±5.9岁)和60例糖尿病患者(平均年龄:52.1±6.5岁)。角膜神经纤维密度(CNFD)、分支密度(CNBD)和纤维长度(CNFL)采用手动(CCMetrics软件,英国曼彻斯特大学)和自动程序(ACCMetrics软件,英国曼彻斯特大学)进行量化。生成Bland-Altman图来评估两种方法之间的一致性。结果:两组在性别、年龄、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白方面无差异,T2DM组BMI、HbA1c、甘油三酯显著增高,HDL显著降低。在ACCMetrics中,糖尿病组CNFL被高估,而两组CNFD被低估(p=0.001)。结论:人工和全自动基底下神经评估方案在CNFD和CNBD测量上的一致性低于健康对照组和糖尿病患者的CNFL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Primary Localized Conjunctival Amyloidosis Mimicking Lymphoma. Selenium: Could It Be the Game-Changer for Ocular Surface and Anterior Chamber in Graves' Disease? Comparison of the Accuracy, Comprehensiveness, and Readability of ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot on Dry Eye Disease. Exploring Health Tourism and Corneal Refractive Surgery: Insights From a Single Referral Center. Comparison of the Depth of the Stromal Demarcation Line and Clinical Outcomes in Corneal Crosslinking Treatment with Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose-Based and Vitamin E-TPGS-Based Riboflavin Solutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1