Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Surrey Biophotonics, Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing and School of Biosciences and Medicine, The University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK.
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 17;11(1):16641. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96068-2.
Adaptive optics flood illumination ophthalmoscopy (AO-FIO) is an established imaging tool in the investigation of retinal diseases. However, the clinical interpretation of AO-FIO images can be challenging due to varied image quality. Therefore, image quality assessment is essential before interpretation. An image assessment tool will also assist further work on improving the image quality, either during acquisition or post processing. In this paper, we describe, validate and compare two automated image quality assessment methods; the energy of Laplacian focus operator (LAPE; not commonly used but easily implemented) and convolutional neural network (CNN; effective but more complex approach). We also evaluate the effects of subject age, axial length, refractive error, fixation stability, disease status and retinal location on AO-FIO image quality. Based on analysis of 10,250 images of 50 × 50 μm size, at 41 retinal locations, from 50 subjects we demonstrate that CNN slightly outperforms LAPE in image quality assessment. CNN achieves accuracy of 89%, whereas LAPE metric achieves 73% and 80% (for a linear regression and random forest multiclass classifier methods, respectively) compared to ground truth. Furthermore, the retinal location, age and disease are factors that can influence the likelihood of poor image quality.
自适应光学眼底血管造影(AO-FIO)是一种用于研究视网膜疾病的成熟成像工具。然而,由于图像质量的差异,对 AO-FIO 图像的临床解读具有一定挑战性。因此,在进行解读之前,对图像质量进行评估至关重要。图像质量评估工具也将有助于进一步改善图像质量,无论是在采集过程中还是在后期处理过程中。在本文中,我们描述、验证和比较了两种自动化图像质量评估方法;拉普拉斯聚焦算子的能量(LAE;不常用但易于实现)和卷积神经网络(CNN;有效但更复杂的方法)。我们还评估了受试者年龄、眼轴长度、屈光不正、固视稳定性、疾病状态和视网膜位置对 AO-FIO 图像质量的影响。基于对 50 名受试者 41 个视网膜位置的 10250 个 50×50μm 大小的图像进行分析,我们证明 CNN 在图像质量评估中略优于 LAPE。CNN 的准确率达到 89%,而 LAPE 指标分别达到 73%和 80%(线性回归和随机森林多类分类器方法),与真实值相比。此外,视网膜位置、年龄和疾病是影响图像质量的因素。