Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Macular Segmentation with Optical Coherence Tomography

Open access
Ishikawa, Hiroshi, Stein, Daniel M., Wollstein, Gadi, Beaton, Siobahn, Fujimoto, James G., Schuman, Joel S.·2005·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a software algorithm to perform automated segmentation of retinal layer structures on linear macular optical coherence tomography (StratusOCT; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) scan images and to test its performance in discriminating normal from glaucomatous eyes in comparison with conventional circumpapillary nerve fiber layer (cpNFL) thickness measurement. METHODS: Four layer structures within the retina were defined: the macular nerve fiber layer (mNFL), the inner retinal complex (IRC; retinal ganglion cell [RGC] layer + inner plexiform and nuclear layers), outer plexiform layer (OPL), and outer retinal complex (ORC; outer nuclear layer + photoreceptor layer). Normal and glaucomatous eyes underwent fast macular map and fast NFL OCT scans. Linear macular images were analyzed using the developed algorithm, and the results were compared with the cpNFL thickness measurement. RESULTS: Forty-seven subjects (23 normal and 24 with glaucoma) were analyzed. mNFL, cpNFL, IRC, and the total retinal thicknesses were significantly greater in normal than in glaucomatous eyes (P < or = 0.0002; Wilcoxon), whereas OPL thickness did not show a significant difference (P = 0.46). ORC thickness was significantly greater in glaucomatous than normal eyes (P = 0.035). Areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AROCs) for discriminating normal from glaucomatous eyes were highest with mNFL + IRC (0.97) and lowest with OPL (0.56). AROCs for OPL and ORC were significantly smaller than those for mNFL, IRC, mNFL+IRC, and cpNFL (P < or = 0.01). AROCs for IRC, mNFL + IRC, and cpNFL were significantly larger than for retinal thickness (P < or = 0.049). Among the best-performing parameters (mNFL, IRC, mNFL + IRC, and cpNFL) there was no significant difference in AROCs (P > or = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed macular segmentation algorithm described herein demonstrated its ability to quantify objectively the glaucomatous damage to RGCs and NFL and to discriminate between glaucomatous and normal eyes. Further algorithm refinement and improvements in resolution and image quality may yield a more powerful methodology for clinical glaucoma evaluation.

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 · 10.1167/iovs.04-0335

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
Ishikawa, H., Stein, D. M., Wollstein, G., Beaton, S., Fujimoto, J. G., & Schuman, J. S.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2005-06-01
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
2012
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2056575109
Cited by
498
References
5
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Macular Segmentation with Optical Coherence Tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.04-0335
The paper
Ishikawa, H., Stein, D. M., Wollstein, G., Beaton, S., Fujimoto, J. G., & Schuman, J. S. (2005). Macular Segmentation with Optical Coherence Tomography. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0335

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.