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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Marr, D., & Hildreth, E. (1980) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1980.0020 · Cited by 6,510
Cited by
Retinal Imaging and Image Analysis
Abramoff, M. D., Garvin, M. K., & Sonka, M. (2010) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2010.2084567 · Cited by 1,439
Fang, L., Cunefare, D., Wang, C., Guymer, R. H., Li, S., & Farsiu, S. (2017) · Biomedical Optics Express · doi:10.1364/boe.8.002732 · Cited by 481
Retinal Vessel Centerline Extraction Using Multiscale Matched Filters, Confidence and Edge Measures
Sofka, M., & Stewart, C. V. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2006.884190 · Cited by 334
Retinal layer segmentation of macular OCT images using boundary classification
Lang, A., Carass, A., Hauser, M., Sotirchos, E. S., Calabresi, P. A., Ying, H. S., & Prince, J. L. (2013) · Biomedical Optics Express · doi:10.1364/boe.4.001133 · Cited by 310
Srinivasan, V. J., Monson, B. K., Wojtkowski, M., Bilonick, R. A., Gorczynska, I., Chen, R., Duker, J. S., Schuman, J. S., & Fujimoto, J. G. (2008) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.07-0838 · Cited by 277
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.