Evaluation of an Automated Choroid Segmentation Algorithm in a Longitudinal Kidney Donor and Recipient Cohort

Résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of an automated choroid segmentation algorithm in optical coherence tomography (OCT) data using a longitudinal kidney donor and recipient cohort. Methods: We assessed 22 donors and 23 patients requiring renal transplantation over up to 1 year posttransplant. We measured choroidal thickness (CT) and area and compared our automated CT measurements to manual ones at the same locations. We estimated associations between choroidal measurements and markers of renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], serum creatinine, and urea) using correlation and linear mixed-effects (LME) modeling. Results: There was good agreement between manual and automated CT. Automated measures were more precise because of smaller measurement error over time. External adjudication of major discrepancies was in favor of automated measures. Significant differences were observed in the choroid pre- and posttransplant in both cohorts, and LME modeling revealed significant linear associations observed between choroidal measures and renal function in recipients. Significant associations were mostly stronger with automated CT (eGFR, P < 0.001; creatinine, P = 0.004; urea, P = 0.04) compared to manual CT (eGFR, P = 0.002; creatinine, P = 0.01; urea, P = 0.03). Conclusions: Our automated approach has greater precision than human-performed manual measurements, which may explain stronger associations with renal function compared to manual measurements. To improve detection of meaningful associations with clinical endpoints in longitudinal studies of OCT, reducing measurement error should be a priority, and automated measurements help achieve this. Translational Relevance: We introduce a novel choroid segmentation algorithm that can replace manual grading for studying the choroid in renal disease and other clinical conditions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.