Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: To determine how optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan density affects quantification of artificial intelligence (AI)-derived structural biomarkers in diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify density thresholds beyond which biomarker fidelity is compromised. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 401 DME eyes underwent three same-session OCT acquisitions using 97-, 49-, and 25-B-scan raster protocols on a single device. A CE-certified deep learning pipeline quantified intraretinal fluid (IRF) volume, subretinal fluid (SRF) volume, inflammatory hyperreflective foci (I-HRF), and photoreceptor integrity metrics. Linear mixed-effects models assessed density effects, Bland-Altman analyses quantified fixed and proportional bias, and volumetric thresholds were computed for deviations beyond ±0.10 mm³. Acquisition efficiency integrated biomarker variability and scan time. Results: A total of 9624 biomarker measurements were analyzed with >98% completeness. SRF volume, I-HRF counts, and photoreceptor integrity metrics were stable across scan densities. IRF volume was density-dependent: the 25-scan protocol overestimated IRF relative to 97- and 49-scan acquisitions (mean bias -0.077 and -0.079 mm³; both P < 0.001), whereas 97- and 49-scan measurements were interchangeable. Overestimation increased with fluid burden (IRF threshold ∼1.1 mm³). Although the 25-scan protocol was fastest (10.7 seconds vs. 23.6 seconds and 50.3 seconds), the 49-scan protocol provided the best balance between speed and precision. Conclusions: Most AI-derived OCT biomarkers in DME are robust to reduced scan density, but IRF volume shows increasing error with undersampling. Higher-density scans should be reserved when precise fluid quantification is required. Translational Relevance: Scan density materially influences AI-derived IRF quantification. Identifying practical acquisition thresholds enables protocol standardization while reducing imaging burden in clinical practice and trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cocuzza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: