Image analysis study reveals high concordance between automated punctate dot counting and expert clinical grading, suggesting reliable quality assurance for dry eye clinical trials.
PURPOSE: To develop an automated method of grading fluorescein staining that accurately reproduces the clinical grading system currently in use. METHODS: From the slit lamp photograph of the fluorescein-stained cornea, the region of interest was selected and punctate dot number calculated using software developed with the OpenCV computer vision library. Images (n = 229) were then divided into six incremental severity categories based on computed scores. The final selection of 54 photographs represented the full range of scores: nine images from each of six categories. These were then evaluated by three investigators using a clinical 0 to 4 corneal staining scale. Pearson correlations were calculated to compare investigator scores, and mean investigator and automated scores. Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between methods and between investigators. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation between investigators was 0.914; mean CCC between investigators was 0.882. Bland-Altman analysis indicated that scores assessed by investigator 3 were significantly higher than those of investigators 1 and 2 (paired t-test). The predicted grade was calculated to be: Gpred = 1.48log(Ndots) - 0.206. The two-point Pearson's correlation coefficient between the methods was 0.927 (P < 0.0001). The CCC between predicted automated score Gpred and mean investigator score was 0.929, 95% confidence interval (0.884-0.957). Bland-Altman analysis did not indicate bias. The difference in SD between clinical and automated methods was 0.398. CONCLUSIONS: An objective, automated analysis of corneal staining provides a quality assurance tool to be used to substantiate clinical grading of key corneal staining endpoints in multicentered clinical trials of dry eye.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodriguez et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: