The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated Assessment of Diabetic Retinal Image Quality Based on Clarity and Field Definition
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of an automated retinal image quality assessment system for use in automated diabetic retinopathy grading. METHODS: Algorithmic methods have been developed for assessing the quality of 45 degrees single field retinal images for use in diabetic retinopathy screening. For this purpose, image quality was defined by two aspects: image clarity and field definition. An image with adequate clarity was defined as one that shows sufficient detail for automated retinopathy grading. The visibility of the macular vessels was used as an indicator of image clarity, since these vessels are known to be narrow and become less visible with any image degradation. An image with adequate field definition was defined as one that shows the desired field of view for retinopathy grading, including the full 45 degrees field of view, the optic disc, and at least two optic disc diameters of visible retina around the fovea. From 489 patients attending a diabetic retinopathy screening program, 1039 retinal images were obtained. The images were graded by a clinician for image clarity and field definition, with a comprehensive image-quality grading scheme. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 100% and 90.9% for inadequate clarity detection, 95.3% and 96.4% for inadequate field definition detection, and 99.1% and 89.4% for inadequate overall quality detection. CONCLUSIONS: The automated system performs with sufficient accuracy to form part of an automated diabetic retinopathy grading system.
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
Causes and Prevalence of Visual Impairment Among Adults in the UnitedStates
(2004) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.122.4.477 · Cited by 2,616
Cited by
A deep learning system for detecting diabetic retinopathy across the disease spectrum
Dai, L., Wu, L., Li, H., Cai, C., Wu, Q., Kong, H., Liu, R., Wang, X., Hou, X., Liu, Y., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23458-5 · Cited by 620
Panwar, N., Huang, P., Lee, J., Keane, P. A., Chuan, T. S., Richhariya, A., Teoh, S., Lim, T. H., & Agrawal, R. (2016) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2015.0068 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Fleming, A. D., Philip, S., Goatman, K. A., Olson, J. A., & Sharp, P. F.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2006-03-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1120
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W1969176779
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.53
- 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: Automated Assessment of Diabetic Retinal Image Quality Based on Clarity and Field Definition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.05-1155
- The paper
- Fleming, A. D., Philip, S., Goatman, K. A., Olson, J. A., & Sharp, P. F. (2006). Automated Assessment of Diabetic Retinal Image Quality Based on Clarity and Field Definition. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-1155
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.