Cross-Device Field-of-View Scale Differences in Clinical OCT Angiography: Phantom Calibration and Large-Scale Clinical Validation
Zhang, Y.; Gong, Z.; Le, V.-H.; Kumar, B. S.; Shi, Y.; Wang, S.; Jiang, Y.; Duong, C.; Henry, S.; Yun, C.; Wu, Y.; Lee, A.; Lee, C.; Wang, R.
Show abstract
Purpose Device-specific field-of-view (FOV) may affect quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) metrics. This study quantifies inter-device FOV scale differences across four commonly used clinical OCTA devices. Methods Four devices were evaluated under a nominal 6 by 6 mm (or 20 degrees by 20 degrees) scanning protocol: Zeiss Cirrus, Heidelberg Spectralis, Topcon Triton, and Topcon Maestro2. Device-specific spatial scale was assessed by (1) phantom calibration using a model eye with a 1 by 1 mm checkerboard, computing scale factors relative to Zeiss Cirrus; and (2) in vivo validation, registering same-eye, same-visit retinal images from the three devices to those of Zeiss Cirrus and extracting scale factors from the transformation matrices. Correlation between DICOM-implied FOV and spherical equivalent (SE) was assessed, where DICOM-implied FOV equals pixel-spacing mutiply by image-dimension. Results Phantom measurements showed that Spectralis, Triton, and Maestro2 each captured a systematically smaller FOV than Cirrus, with geometric mean scale factors of 0.933, 0.954, and 0.967. The same pattern was observed across 801 eyes from 556 participants, giving geometric mean scale factors of 0.939, 0.943, and 0.960, agreeing with phantom estimates within 1.2%. DICOM-implied FOV was fixed at 6.000 by 6.000 mm for three devices but varied from 5.212 by 5.209 to 6.743 by 6.739 mm for Spectralis, correlating with SE (P < 0.001). Conclusion Systematic FOV discrepancies exist across clinical OCTA devices despite nominally identical protocols, and DICOM pixel-spacing should be interpreted with caution as a spatial measure. Translational Relevance The reported device-specific scale factors could serve as magnification corrections for quantitative OCTA metrics, addressing the systematic spatial inter-device discrepancies.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Low-cost, Smartphone-based Specular Imaging and Automated Analysis of the Corneal Endothelium 93%
- Visible light optical coherence tomography of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer reflectivity in glaucoma 93%
- Visual field evaluation using Zippy Adaptive Threshold Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast in patients with glaucoma and healthy individuals 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements Anterior Segment OCT extension reporting guidelines: APOSTEL-AS 95%
- Automation improves repeatability of retinal oximetry measurements 94%
- Prediction of the ectasia screening index from raw Casia2 volume data for keratoconus identification by using convolutional neural networks 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of OCT biomarker changes in treatment-naive neovascular AMD using a deep semantic segmentation algorithm 92%
- Dense Optic Nerve Head Deformation Estimated using CNN as a Structural Biomarker of Glaucoma Progression 91%
- Automated vision screening of children using a mobile graphic device 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated Expert-level Scleral Spur Detection and Quantitative Biometric Analysis on the ANTERION Anterior Segment OCT System 94%
- Autonomous Screening for Laser Photocoagulation in Fundus Images Using Deep Learning 93%
- Macula structural and vascular differences in glaucoma eyes with and without high axial myopia 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.