Suppr超能文献

用于量化2型糖尿病患者和非2型糖尿病患者角膜神经形态的自动分析程序与手动分析程序的比较

Comparison of Automated Versus Manual Analysis Programs for Quantification of Corneal Nerve Morphology in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

作者信息

Aydin Fahri Onur, Ozkan Gamze, Turhan Semra Akkaya, Toker Ebru

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Department of Ophthalmology, Sultanbeyli State Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.

出版信息

Beyoglu Eye J. 2024 Dec 11;9(4):202-207. doi: 10.14744/bej.2024.92063. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the agreement between the automated analysis program and a manual program for quantification of corneal nerve morphology.

METHODS

Twenty-seven non-diabetic controls (mean age: 48.6±5.9 years) and 60 subjects with diabetes (mean age: 52.1±6.5 years) were enrolled. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and fiber length (CNFL) were quantified by the manual (CCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK) and automated program (ACCMetrics software, University of Manchester, UK). Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess agreement between the two methods.

RESULTS

There were no differences in gender, age, total cholesterol, and LDL between the two groups, whereas BMI, HbA1c, and triglyceride were significantly higher and HDL was significantly lower in the T2DM group. CNFL was overestimated in the diabetic group and CNFD was underestimated in both groups with ACCMetrics (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). The Bland-Altman plots for both groups demonstrated good agreement for CNFL, with a wide limit of agreement (LoA) of 95% for CNFD and CNBD.

CONCLUSION

Manual and fully automated protocols for sub-basal nerve evaluation had lower agreement in the measurement of CNFD and CNBD than CNFL in healthy controls and subjects with diabetes.

摘要

目的

评估用于角膜神经形态定量分析的自动化分析程序与手动程序之间的一致性。

方法

纳入27名非糖尿病对照者(平均年龄:48.6±5.9岁)和60名糖尿病患者(平均年龄:52.1±6.5岁)。通过手动程序(英国曼彻斯特大学的CCMetrics软件)和自动化程序(英国曼彻斯特大学的ACCMetrics软件)对角膜神经纤维密度(CNFD)、分支密度(CNBD)和纤维长度(CNFL)进行定量分析。绘制Bland-Altman图以评估两种方法之间的一致性。

结果

两组在性别、年龄、总胆固醇和低密度脂蛋白方面无差异,而2型糖尿病组的体重指数、糖化血红蛋白和甘油三酯显著更高,高密度脂蛋白显著更低。在糖尿病组中,ACCMetrics高估了CNFL,在两组中均低估了CNFD(分别为p=0.001,p<0.001)。两组的Bland-Altman图显示CNFL具有良好的一致性,CNFD和CNBD的95%一致性界限较宽。

结论

在健康对照者和糖尿病患者中,用于基底膜下神经评估的手动和全自动方案在CNFD和CNBD测量方面的一致性低于CNFL。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验