基于镜面反射显微镜图像的半自动中心点法与全自动内皮细胞分析的比较

Comparison of semi-automated center-dot and fully automated endothelial cell analyses from specular microscopy images.

作者信息

Maruoka Sachiko, Nakakura Shunsuke, Matsuo Naoko, Yoshitomi Kayo, Katakami Chikako, Tabuchi Hitoshi, Chikama Taiichiro, Kiuchi Yoshiaki

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Saneikai Tsukazaki Hospital, 68-1 Aboshi Waku, Himeji, 671-1227, Japan.

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Minami, Kasumi, Hioroshima, 734-8553, Japan.

出版信息

Int Ophthalmol. 2018 Dec;38(6):2495-2507. doi: 10.1007/s10792-017-0760-7. Epub 2017 Oct 30.

DOI:10.1007/s10792-017-0760-7

PMID:29086325

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate two specular microscopy analysis methods across different endothelial cell densities (ECDs).

METHODS

Endothelial images of one eye from each of 45 patients were taken by using three different specular microscopes (three replicates each). To determine the consistency of the center-dot method, we compared SP-6000 and SP-2000P images. CME-530 and SP-6000 images were compared to assess the consistency of the fully automated method. The SP-6000 images from the two methods were compared. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the three measurements were calculated, and parametric multiple comparisons tests and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The ECD mean value was 2425 ± 883 (range 516-3707) cells/mm. ICC values were > 0.9 for all three microscopes for ECD, but the coefficients of variation (CVs) were 0.3-0.6. For ECD measurements, Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference was 42 cells/mm between the SP-2000P and SP-6000 for the center-dot method; 57 cells/mm between the SP-6000 measurements from both methods; and -5 cells/mm between the SP-6000 and CME-530 for the fully automated method (95% limits of agreement: - 201 to 284 cell/mm, - 410 to 522 cells/mm, and - 327 to 318 cells/mm, respectively). For CV measurements, the mean differences were - 3, - 12, and 13% (95% limits of agreement - 18 to 11, - 26 to 2, and - 5 to 32%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite using three replicate measurements, the precision of the center-dot method with the SP-2000P and SP-6000 software was only ± 10% for ECD data and was even worse for the fully automated method.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Clinical Trials Register ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm9 ) number UMIN 000015236.

摘要

目的

评估两种镜面显微镜分析方法在不同内皮细胞密度（ECD）下的情况。

方法

使用三种不同的镜面显微镜（每种重复三次）对45例患者的单眼进行内皮细胞图像采集。为确定中心点法的一致性，我们比较了SP - 6000和SP - 2000P图像。比较CME - 530和SP - 6000图像以评估全自动方法的一致性。比较两种方法下SP - 6000的图像。计算三次测量的组内相关系数（ICC），并进行参数多重比较检验和Bland - Altman分析。

结果

ECD平均值为2425 ± 883（范围516 - 3707）个细胞/mm²。三种显微镜的ECD的ICC值均>0.9，但变异系数（CV）为0.3 - 0.6。对于ECD测量，Bland - Altman分析显示，中心点法中SP - 2000P和SP - 6000之间的平均差异为42个细胞/mm²；两种方法下SP - 6000测量值之间为57个细胞/mm²；全自动方法中SP - 6000和CME - 530之间为 - 5个细胞/mm²（95%一致性界限：分别为 - 201至284个细胞/mm²、 - 410至522个细胞/mm²和 - 327至318个细胞/mm²）。对于CV测量，平均差异分别为 - 3%、 - 12%和13%（95%一致性界限分别为 - 18%至11%、 - 26%至2%和 - 5%至32%）。