Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Classification of Eyes with and without Intermediate Age-related Macular Degeneration Using Optical Coherence Tomography

Open access
Farsiu, Sina, Chiu, Stephanie J., O'Connell, Rachelle V., Folgar, Francisco A., Yuan, Eric, Izatt, Joseph A., Toth, Cynthia A.·2014·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Objective To define quantitative indicators for the presence of intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) via spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) imaging of older adults. Design Evaluation of diagnostic test and technology. Participants and Controls One eye from 115 elderly subjects without AMD and 269 subjects with intermediate AMD from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Ancillary SD-OCT Study. Methods We semiautomatically delineated the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and RPE drusen complex (RPEDC, the axial distance from the apex of the drusen and RPE layer to Bruch's membrane) and total retina (TR, the axial distance between the inner limiting and Bruch's membranes) boundaries. We registered and averaged the thickness maps from control subjects to generate a map of “normal” non-AMD thickness. We considered RPEDC thicknesses larger or smaller than 3 standard deviations from the mean as abnormal, indicating drusen or geographic atrophy (GA), respectively. We measured TR volumes, RPEDC volumes, and abnormal RPEDC thickening and thinning volumes for each subject. By using different combinations of these 4 disease indicators, we designed 5 automated classifiers for the presence of AMD on the basis of the generalized linear model regression framework. We trained and evaluated the performance of these classifiers using the leave-one-out method. Main Outcome Measures The range and topographic distribution of the RPEDC and TR thicknesses in a 5-mm diameter cylinder centered at the fovea. Results The most efficient method for separating AMD and control eyes required all 4 disease indicators. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for this classifier was >0.99. Overall neurosensory retinal thickening in eyes with AMD versus control eyes in our study contrasts with previous smaller studies. Conclusions We identified and validated efficient biometrics to distinguish AMD from normal eyes by analyzing the topographic distribution of normal and abnormal RPEDC thicknesses across a large atlas of eyes. We created an online atlas to share the 38 400 SD-OCT images in this study, their corresponding segmentations, and quantitative measurements. Financial Disclosure(s) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.013

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Farsiu, S., Chiu, S. J., O'Connell, R. V., Folgar, F. A., Yuan, E., Izatt, J. A., & Toth, C. A.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
162-172
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001080026
Cited by
368
References
45
FWCI
10.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative Classification of Eyes with and without Intermediate Age-related Macular Degeneration Using Optical Coherence Tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.013
The paper
Farsiu, S., Chiu, S. J., O'Connell, R. V., Folgar, F. A., Yuan, E., Izatt, J. A., & Toth, C. A. (2014). Quantitative Classification of Eyes with and without Intermediate Age-related Macular Degeneration Using Optical Coherence Tomography. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.