Paper detail

Automated Segmentation of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Images: Benchmark Data and Clinically Relevant Metrics

Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is a novel non-invasive imaging modality for the visualisation of microvasculature in vivo that has encountered broad adoption in retinal research. OCTA potential in the assessment of pathological conditions and the reproducibility of studies relies on the quality of the image analysis. However, automated segmentation of parafoveal OCTA images is still an open problem. In this study, we generate the first open dataset of retinal parafoveal OCTA images with associated ground truth manual segmentations. Furthermore, we establish a standard for OCTA image segmentation by surveying a broad range of state-of-the-art vessel enhancement and binarisation procedures. We provide the most comprehensive comparison of these methods under a unified framework to date. Our results show that, for the set of images considered, deep learning architectures (U-Net and CS-Net) achieve the best performance. For applications where manually segmented data is not available to retrain these approaches, our findings suggest that optimal oriented flux is the best handcrafted filter from those considered. Furthermore, we report on the importance of preserving network structure in the segmentation to enable deep vascular phenotyping. We introduce new metrics for network structure evaluation in segmented angiograms. Our results demonstrate that segmentation methods with equal Dice score perform very differently in terms of network structure preservation. Moreover, we compare the error in the computation of clinically relevant vascular network metrics (e.g. foveal avascular zone area and vessel density) across segmentation methods. Our results show up to 25% differences in vessel density accuracy depending on the segmentation method employed. These findings should be taken into account when comparing the results of clinical studies and performing meta-analyses.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.