State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangzhou, China.
Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Guangzhou, China.
Curr Eye Res. 2023 Sep;48(9):843-849. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2023.2212881. Epub 2023 May 29.
To compare the Retina-based Microvascular Health Assessment System (RMHAS) with Integrative Vessel Analysis (IVAN) for retinal vessel caliber measurement.
Eligible fundus photographs from the Lingtou Eye Cohort Study were obtained alongside their corresponding participant data. Vascular diameter was automatically measured using IVAN and RMHAS software, and intersoftware variations were assessed by intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Scatterplots and Bland-Altman plots assessed the agreement between programs, and a Pearson's correlation test assessed the strength of associations between systemic variables and retinal calibers. An algorithm was proposed to convert measurements between software for interchangeability.
ICCs between IVAN and RMHAS were moderate for CRAE and AVR (ICC; 95%CI)(0.62; 0.60 to 0.63 and 0.42; 0.40 to 0.44 respectively) and excellent for CRVE (0.76; 0.75 to 0.77). When comparing retinal vascular calibre measurements between tools, mean differences (MD, 95% confidence intervals) in CRAE, CRVE, and AVR were 22.34 (-7.29 to 51.97 µm),-7.01 (-37.68 to 23.67 µm), and 0.12 (-0.02 to 0.26 µm), respectively. The correlation of systemic parameters with CRAE/CRVE was poor and the correlation of CRAE with age, sex, systolic blood pressure, and CRVE with age, sex, and serum glucose were significantly different between IVAN and RMHAS ( < 0.05).
CRAE and AVR correlated moderately between retinal measurement software systems while CRVE correlated well. Further studies confirming this agreeability and interchangeability in large-scale datasets are needed before softwares are deemed comparable in clinical practice.
比较视网膜血管健康评估系统（RMHAS）和综合血管分析（IVAN）在视网膜血管直径测量方面的性能。
从灵头眼病队列研究中获取符合条件的眼底照片及其相应的参与者数据。使用 IVAN 和 RMHAS 软件自动测量血管直径，并通过组内相关系数（ICC）和 95%置信区间（CI）评估软件间的差异。散点图和 Bland-Altman 图评估了两个程序之间的一致性，Pearson 相关检验评估了系统变量与视网膜血管直径之间的关联强度。提出了一种算法来转换软件之间的测量值以实现互换性。
IVAN 和 RMHAS 之间的 CRAE 和 AVR 的 ICC 为中度（ICC；95%CI）（0.62；0.60 至 0.63 和 0.42；0.40 至 0.44），CRVE 的 ICC 为极好（0.76；0.75 至 0.77）。当比较工具之间的视网膜血管直径测量值时，CRAE、CRVE 和 AVR 的平均差异（MD，95%置信区间）分别为 22.34（-7.29 至 51.97μm）、-7.01（-37.68 至 23.67μm）和 0.12（-0.02 至 0.26μm）。系统参数与 CRAE/CRVE 的相关性较差，且 CRAE 与年龄、性别、收缩压的相关性以及 CRVE 与年龄、性别和血清葡萄糖的相关性在 IVAN 和 RMHAS 之间差异显著（ < 0.05）。
在视网膜测量软件系统中，CRAE 和 AVR 之间的相关性为中度，而 CRVE 之间的相关性较好。在大型数据集的进一步研究证实这种一致性和互换性之前，软件在临床实践中被认为是可比的。
