Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Retinal thickness measurements from optical coherence tomography using a Markov boundary model

Koozekanani, D., Boyer, K., Roberts, C.·2001·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

We present a system for detecting retinal boundaries in optical coherence tomography (OCT) B-scans. OCT is a relatively new imaging modality giving cross-sectional images that are qualitatively similar to ultrasound. However, the axial resolution with OCT is much higher, on the order of 10 microm. Objective, quantitative measures of retinal thickness may be made from OCT images. Knowledge of retinal thickness is important in the evaluation and treatment of many ocular diseases. The boundary-detection system presented here uses a one-dimensional edge-detection kernel to yield edge primitives. These edge primitives are rated, selected, and organized to form a coherent boundary structure by use of a Markov model of retinal boundaries as detected by OCT. Qualitatively, the boundaries detected by the automated system generally agreed extremely well with the true retinal structure for the vast majority of OCT images. Only one of the 1450 evaluation images caused the algorithm to fail. A quantitative evaluation of the retinal boundaries was performed as well, using the clinical application of automatic retinal thickness determination. Retinal thickness measurements derived from the algorithm's results were compared with thickness measurements from manually corrected boundaries for 1450 test images. The algorithm's thickness measurements over a 1-mm region near the fovea differed from the corrected thickness measurements by less than 10 microm for 74% of the images and by less than 25 microm (10% of normal retinal thickness) for 98.4% of the images. These errors are near the machine's resolution limit and still well below clinical significance. Current, standard clinical practice involves a qualitative, visual assessment of retinal thickness. A robust, quantitatively accurate system such as ours can be expected to improve patient care.

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 · 10.1109/42.952728

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Koozekanani, D., Boyer, K., & Roberts, C.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2001
Volume
20
Issue
9
Pages
900-916
ISSN
0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999377661
Cited by
231
References
1
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Retinal thickness measurements from optical coherence tomography using a Markov boundary model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/42.952728
The paper
Koozekanani, D., Boyer, K., & Roberts, C. (2001). Retinal thickness measurements from optical coherence tomography using a Markov boundary model. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.952728

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.