PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
To compare peak cone density predicted from outer segment length measured on optical coherence tomography with direct measures of peak cone density from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy.
Data from 42 healthy participants with direct peak cone density measures and optical coherence tomography line scans available were used in this study. Longitudinal reflectivity profiles were analyzed using two methods of identifying the boundaries of the ellipsoid and interdigitation zones to estimate maximum outer segment length: peak-to-peak and the slope method. These maximum outer segment length values were then used to predict peak cone density using a previously described geometrical model. A comparison between predicted and direct peak cone density measures was then performed.
The mean bias between observers for estimating maximum outer segment length across methods was less than 2 µm. Cone density predicted from the peak-to-peak method against direct cone density measures showed a mean bias of 6,812 cones/mm2 with 50% of participants displaying a 10% difference or less between predicted and direct cone density values. Cone density derived from the slope method showed a mean bias of -17,929 cones/mm2 relative to direct cone density measures, with only 41% of participants demonstrating less than a 10% difference between direct and predicted cone density values.
Predicted foveal cone density derived from peak-to-peak outer segment length measurements using commercial optical coherence tomography show modest agreement with direct measures of peak cone density from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy. The methods used here are imperfect predictors of cone density, however, further exploration of this relationship could reveal a clinically relevant marker of cone structure.
Data from 42 healthy participants with direct peak cone density measures and optical coherence tomography line scans available were used in this study. Longitudinal reflectivity profiles were analyzed using two methods of identifying the boundaries of the ellipsoid and interdigitation zones to estimate maximum outer segment length: peak-to-peak and the slope method. These maximum outer segment length values were then used to predict peak cone density using a previously described geometrical model. A comparison between predicted and direct peak cone density measures was then performed.
The mean bias between observers for estimating maximum outer segment length across methods was less than 2 µm. Cone density predicted from the peak-to-peak method against direct cone density measures showed a mean bias of 6,812 cones/mm2 with 50% of participants displaying a 10% difference or less between predicted and direct cone density values. Cone density derived from the slope method showed a mean bias of -17,929 cones/mm2 relative to direct cone density measures, with only 41% of participants demonstrating less than a 10% difference between direct and predicted cone density values.
Predicted foveal cone density derived from peak-to-peak outer segment length measurements using commercial optical coherence tomography show modest agreement with direct measures of peak cone density from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy. The methods used here are imperfect predictors of cone density, however, further exploration of this relationship could reveal a clinically relevant marker of cone structure.
摘要：
■比较从光学相干断层扫描上测量的外段长度预测的峰值锥密度与来自自适应光学扫描光检眼镜的峰值锥密度的直接测量。
■在这项研究中使用了来自42名健康参与者的数据，这些参与者具有直接的峰锥密度测量值和可用的光学相干断层扫描线扫描。使用两种识别椭圆体和交叉区域边界的方法来分析纵向反射率轮廓，以估计最大外段长度：峰到峰和斜率法。这些最大外段长度值然后用于使用先前描述的几何模型来预测峰值锥体密度。然后进行预测和直接峰值锥密度测量之间的比较。
■用于估算跨方法的最大外段长度的观察者之间的平均偏差小于2µm。从峰到峰方法相对于直接锥密度测量值预测的锥密度显示出6,812锥/mm2的平均偏差，其中50％的参与者在预测和直接锥密度值之间显示10％或更小的差异。从斜率法得出的锥密度显示，相对于直接锥密度测量的平均偏差为-17,929锥/mm2，只有41％的参与者表现出直接和预测的视锥密度值之间的差异不到10％。
■使用商业光学相干断层扫描从峰到峰外段长度测量得出的预测中央凹锥体密度与自适应光学扫描光检眼镜直接测量的峰值锥体密度适度一致。这里使用的方法是不完美的锥体密度预测因子，然而,对这种关系的进一步探索可以揭示锥体结构的临床相关标记。
■在这项研究中使用了来自42名健康参与者的数据，这些参与者具有直接的峰锥密度测量值和可用的光学相干断层扫描线扫描。使用两种识别椭圆体和交叉区域边界的方法来分析纵向反射率轮廓，以估计最大外段长度：峰到峰和斜率法。这些最大外段长度值然后用于使用先前描述的几何模型来预测峰值锥体密度。然后进行预测和直接峰值锥密度测量之间的比较。
■用于估算跨方法的最大外段长度的观察者之间的平均偏差小于2µm。从峰到峰方法相对于直接锥密度测量值预测的锥密度显示出6,812锥/mm2的平均偏差，其中50％的参与者在预测和直接锥密度值之间显示10％或更小的差异。从斜率法得出的锥密度显示，相对于直接锥密度测量的平均偏差为-17,929锥/mm2，只有41％的参与者表现出直接和预测的视锥密度值之间的差异不到10％。
■使用商业光学相干断层扫描从峰到峰外段长度测量得出的预测中央凹锥体密度与自适应光学扫描光检眼镜直接测量的峰值锥体密度适度一致。这里使用的方法是不完美的锥体密度预测因子，然而,对这种关系的进一步探索可以揭示锥体结构的临床相关标记。
