Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
PurposeTo evaluate alterations of the choroid in patients with a neurodegenerative disease versus healthy controls, a custom algorithm based on superpixel segmentation was used.DesignA cross-sectional study was conducted on data obtained in a previous cohort study.SubjectsSwept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) B-scan images obtained using a Triton (Topcon, Japan) device were compiled according to current OSCAR IB and APOSTEL OCT image quality criteria. Images were included from three cohorts: multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, Parkinson disease (PD) patients, and healthy subjects. Only patients with early-stage MS and PD were included.MethodsIn total, 104 OCT B-scan images were processed using a custom superpixel segmentation (SpS) algorithm to detect boundary limits in the choroidal layer and the optical properties of the image. The algorithm groups pixels with similar structural properties to generate clusters with similar meaningful properties.Main outcomesSpS selects and groups the superpixels in a segmented choroidal area, computing the choroidal optical image density (COID), measured as the standard mean gray level, and the total choroidal area (CA), measured as px2.ResultsThe CA and choroidal density (CD) were significantly reduced in the two neurodegenerative disease groups (higher in PD than in MS) versus the healthy subjects (p p ConclusionsThe SpS algorithm detected choroidal tissue boundary limits and differences optical density in MS and PD patients versus healthy controls. The application of the SpS algorithm to OCT images potentially acts as a non-invasive biomarker for the early diagnosis of MS and PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.