2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.03.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A fully automated cell segmentation and morphometric parameter system for quantifying corneal endothelial cell morphology

Abstract: AS et al (2018) A fully automated cell segmentation and morphometric parameter system for quantifying corneal endothelial cell morphology. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 160: 11-23. Rights

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
31
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
31
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We have previously demonstrated a reduction in corneal endothelial cell density in patients with diabetes [42, 43]. We have also recently developed an automated image analysis system to quantify corneal endothelial cell morphology and shown reduced corneal endothelial cell density and hypertrophy in patients with diabetes [24]. Given that we found corneal nerve and endothelial cell abnormalities in patients with TIA and minor stroke, we assessed for associations with cerebrovascular reactivity and risk factors for stroke.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We have previously demonstrated a reduction in corneal endothelial cell density in patients with diabetes [42, 43]. We have also recently developed an automated image analysis system to quantify corneal endothelial cell morphology and shown reduced corneal endothelial cell density and hypertrophy in patients with diabetes [24]. Given that we found corneal nerve and endothelial cell abnormalities in patients with TIA and minor stroke, we assessed for associations with cerebrovascular reactivity and risk factors for stroke.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) and corneal nerve fiber tortuosity (CNFT) were analysed manually using CCMetrics (M. A. Dabbah, ISBE, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom) [12] and the investigator was blinded to the diagnosis. Corneal endothelial cell density, area, perimeter and degree of polymegathism (cell size variability) and pleomorphism (cell shape variability) were quantified using automated CEAS software [24].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The image analysis was performed blindly without the investigator being aware of whether the images were from a control subject or patient with stroke. Each image was exported to a real-time automated image analysis system (Corneal Endothelium Analysis System (CEAS)) 50 . A central region of interest (ROI) was traced for each image to identify the optimal area for quantification, avoiding peripheral darker areas.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, many of them suggested the necessity of user interaction to correct errors. In contrast, new clinically applicable methods have been proposed in recent years: Foracchia and Ruggeri [ 21 ] developed an algorithm based on Bayesian shape models, which later evolved into a genetic algorithm by Scarpa and Ruggeri [ 22 ]; Sharif et al [ 23 ] developed a hybrid model based on a combination of an active contour model (snakes) and a particle swarm optimization approach; Habrat et al [ 24 ] proposed an algorithm based on directional filters, which was clinically evaluated along with other methods [ 25 ]; Al-Fahdawi et al [ 26 ] suggested a method based on the watershed algorithm and Voronoi tessellations; Selig et al [ 27 ] employed Fourier analysis and the seeded watershed algorithm in a stochastic manner to segment confocal images; and Vigueras-Guillén et al [ 28 ] proposed a classifier-driven method to generate an accurate segmentation from an oversegmented image, using Selig et al’s approach [ 27 ] to generate the oversegmentation. Among these methods, the ones including a comparison with their respective microscope’s estimates were significantly more accurate, yet some mistakes were still present.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%