Evaluation of a portable retinal imaging device: towards a comparative quantitative analysis for morphological measurements of retinal blood vessels

Abstract

This study investigated the possibility of using low-cost, handheld, retinal imaging devices for the automatic extraction of quantifiable measures of retinal blood vessels. Initially, the available handheld devices were compared using a Zeiss model eye incorporating a USAF resolution test chart to assess their optical properties. The only suitable camera of the five evaluated was the Horus DEC 200. This device was then subjected to a detailed evaluation in which images in human eyes taken from the handheld camera were compared in a quantitative analysis with those of the same eye from a Canon CR-DGi retinal desktop camera. We found that the Horus DEC 200 exhibited shortcomings in capturing images of human eyes by comparison with the Canon. More images were rejected as being unevaluable or suffering failures in automatic segmentation than with the Canon, and even after exclusion of affected images, the Horus yielded lower measurements of vessel density than the Canon. A number of issues affecting handheld cameras in general and some features of the Horus in particular have been identified that might contribute to the observed differences in performance. Some potential mitigations are discussed which might yield improvements in performance, thus potentially facilitating use of handheld retinal imaging devices for quantitative retinal microvascular measurements.

Retinal Image Quality Assessment Using Morphological Operations

“…Retinal image quality evaluation is a vital process which should be done before ROP disease diagnosis to ensure that the image contents are visible for accurate diagnosis. Image features is a key parameter for determining image quality and can be affected by many factors including: the type of device used to capture the image, room lighting during image capturing, and the experience of the person capturing the image [4], [5]. There are two dimensions used to examine the quality of an image: content and clarity [6].…”