Testing a phantom eye under various signal-to-noise ratio conditions using eleven different OCT devices

Abstract

We compared eleven OCT devices in their ability to quantify retinal layer thicknesses under different signal-strength conditions, using a commercially available phantom eye. We analyzed a medium-intensity 50 µm layer in an identical manner for all devices, using the provided log-scale images and a reconstructed linear-scale tissue reflectivity metric. Thickness measurements were highly comparable when the data were analyzed in an identical manner. With optimal signal strength, the thickness of the 50 µm layer was overestimated by a mean of 4.3 µm in the log-scale images and of 2.7 µm in the linear-scale images.

Structure–Function Analysis in Macular Drusen With Mesopic and Scotopic Microperimetry

“…We also performed our calculations on the raw OCT signal rather than the transformed images, which allowed for easy linear computations that more precisely reflect the optical properties of the retinal layers. 40 , 41 One limitation of this method is that it does not account for hyperreflective foci, which can be indicative of more advanced damage to the outer retina. 42 The explanations for the statistically significant effect of PRR can be multiple.…”

Criteria for the design of tissue-mimicking phantoms for the standardization of biophotonic instrumentation

“…Increased multi-national collaboration -not only between research institutes, but also between the worlds of academia, industry, healthcare and government -is essential to find consensus on device handling and performance. A relatively small number of multicentre studies have been performed in optical imaging 19,72,125,216,271 ; increasing these efforts…”

Influence of signal‐to‐noise ratio, glaucoma stage and segmentation algorithm on OCT usability for quantifying layer thicknesses in the peripapillary retina

“…We used the same population also in our previous study, where we addressed the macular area. (Heikka, Ometto, et al, 2020) For the healthy subjects, the inclusion criteria were (1) age between 18 and 50, (2) best-corrected visual acuity of 1.0 or better in the study eye, (3) a spherical equivalent >−4 dioptres (that is, high myopia was not allowed), (4) a normal visual field as tested with frequency doubling technology (FDT C20-1 screening mode; Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany), ( 5) an intraocular pressure of 21 mmHg or below (non-contact tonometry) and ( 6) no ophthalmic history or first-degree relatives with a history of glaucoma. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 28.5 (5.5) years; 45% were male.…”