Brightness, Contrast, and Color Balance of Digital versus Film Retinal Images in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2

Hubbard, Larry D.; Danis, Ronald P.; Neider, Michael W.; Thayer, Dennis; Wabers, Hugh D.; White, James; Pugliese, Anthony J.; Pugliese, Michael F.

doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1267

Cited by 71 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Digital photographs were balanced for color and contrast to closely match 35-mm fundus slides. 16 Our 2400 ϫ 2000-pixel digital photography resolving power was approximately 13 m on the retina, sufficient for detecting the smallest IRMA, NVE, or Ma seen on the film. As much as possible, we minimized differences between viewing stereo and monoscopic images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The color-balancing algorithm was modified from one included in the UW Fundus Photograph Reading Center algorithm for reading Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) digital images. 16 Digital photography from the 152 stereo pair image sets were copied and processed to create the other digital formats. Monochromatic green channel images are thought to provide better contrast of small lesions against their background than does full color photography.…”

Section: Fundus Photographsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monoscopic versus Stereoscopic Retinal Photography for Grading Diabetic Retinopathy Severity

Hubbard

Danis

et al. 2010

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.To assess agreement between monoscopic and stereoscopic photography for research classification of the severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS. Monoscopic digital (MD) images were compared with stereo digital (SD) and film (SF) photographs from a 152-eye cohort with full-spectrum Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity levels for agreement on severity level, DR presence with ascending severity threshold, presence of DR index lesions, and repeatability of grading. RESULTS. There was substantial agreement classifying ETDRS DR severity levels between MD and SF ( ϭ 0.65, w [linear weighted] ϭ 0.87), MD and SD ( ϭ 0.66, w ϭ 0.87), and SD and SF ( ϭ 0.62, w ϭ 0.86) images. Marginal homogeneity analyses found no significant difference between MD and SF images (P ϭ 0.53, Bhapkar test). The agreement between MD and SF ranged from 0.80 to 0.94 for the presence or absence of eight ascending DR severity thresholds. Repeatability between the readers of the MD images was equal to or better than that of the readers of SD or SF images. Severity threshold grading repeatability between readers was similar with the MD and SF images. The agreement between MD and SF for identifying diabetic retinopathy lesions ranged from moderate to almost perfect. The comparisons showed that performance of grading new vessels on the disc in MD images was slightly lower than that with the SF images. CONCLUSIONS. Monoscopic photography can equal the reliability of stereo photography for full ETDRS DR severity scale grading. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Fundus Photographsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monoscopic versus Stereoscopic Retinal Photography for Grading Diabetic Retinopathy Severity

Hubbard

Danis

et al. 2010

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hubbard et al [60] analyzed the brightness, contrast and color balance of digital versus film retinal images to propose a model tailored for the evaluation of AMD. They considered 3-megapixel systems, at 30° FOV, as acceptable to image AMD retinas where ‘... drusen as small as 32 µm diameter ...’ can be found although resolutions over a 6-megapixel system are preferred [60].…”

Section: Influence On the Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They considered 3-megapixel systems, at 30° FOV, as acceptable to image AMD retinas where ‘... drusen as small as 32 µm diameter ...’ can be found although resolutions over a 6-megapixel system are preferred [60]. They concluded that ‘In AREDS2, the best digital images matched the best film.…”

Section: Influence On the Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Ocular Fundus Imaging: A Review

Bernardes

Serranho

Lobo³

2011

Ophthalmologica

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ocular fundus imaging plays a key role in monitoring the health status of the human eye. Currently, a large number of imaging modalities allow the assessment and/or quantification of ocular changes from a healthy status. This review focuses on the main digital fundus imaging modality, color fundus photography, with a brief overview of complementary techniques, such as fluorescein angiography. While focusing on two-dimensional color fundus photography, the authors address the evolution from nondigital to digital imaging and its impact on diagnosis. They also compare several studies performed along the transitional path of this technology. Retinal image processing and analysis, automated disease detection and identification of the stage of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are addressed as well. The authors emphasize the problems of image segmentation, focusing on the major landmark structures of the ocular fundus: the vascular network, optic disk and the fovea. Several proposed approaches for the automatic detection of signs of disease onset and progression, such as microaneurysms, are surveyed. A thorough comparison is conducted among different studies with regard to the number of eyes/subjects, imaging modality, fundus camera used, field of view and image resolution to identify the large variation in characteristics from one study to another. Similarly, the main features of the proposed classifications and algorithms for the automatic detection of DR are compared, thereby addressing computer-aided diagnosis and computer-aided detection for use in screening programs.

show abstract

“…1 Clinical characteristics in the 310 subjects included in the study are given in Table 1 at DCCT baseline (1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989), EDIC baseline, and at the time of the digitalto-film transition study (EDIC years [14][15][16]. Comparison of the 310 participants with the remaining 1131 persons enrolled in the DCCT showed no important differences except that more nonparticipants were male, from the secondary cohort, and had higher mean hemoglobin A 1c levels during DCCT (eTable; www .archophthalmol.com), largely because 6.9% who had died and 6.2% who were inactive were included as substudy nonparticipants.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Digital and Film Grading of Diabetic Retinopathy Severity in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study

Hubbard

Sun²,

Cleary³

et al. 2011

Arch Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brightness, Contrast, and Color Balance of Digital versus Film Retinal Images in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2

Cited by 71 publications

References 8 publications

Monoscopic versus Stereoscopic Retinal Photography for Grading Diabetic Retinopathy Severity

Monoscopic versus Stereoscopic Retinal Photography for Grading Diabetic Retinopathy Severity

Digital Ocular Fundus Imaging: A Review

Comparison of Digital and Film Grading of Diabetic Retinopathy Severity in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About