English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Purpose  To compare inter‐ and intraobserver reliability and intermodality agreement on quantification of geographic atrophy, using two routinely available quantification tools, based on blue‐light fundus autofluorescence ( BAF ) and spectral‐domain optical coherence tomography ( SD ‐ OCT ).    Methods  Quantifications of atrophic lesions within the central 5 mm of 30 eyes from 30 patients (mean age: 76.1 years) were independently performed by two clinicians on  BAF  images using the  region finder  ( RF ; Heidelberg Engineering) and on  SD ‐ OCT  using the advanced retinal pigment epithelium tool ( ARPET ; Carl Zeiss Meditec) at baseline and follow‐up (mean interval: 336 days). Inter‐ and intraobserver reliability was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICC ) and Bland–Altmann plots. Additionally, graders rated the experienced difficulty of each measurement.    Results  Intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICC ) showed excellent inter‐ and intraobserver reliability with values between 0.994 and 0.998 for  RF  and slightly higher values for  ARPET  of 0.997 and 0.999. Bland–Altman plots showed smaller variability for  ARPET . Mean interobserver differences (95%  CI ) for size measurements were −0.11 (−0.27; 0.05) (baseline) and −0.05 mm² (−0.18; 0.08) (follow‐up) for  RF  and −0.04 (−0.14; 0.06) and −0.06 mm² (−0.14; 0.02) for  ARPET . Measurements of lesions were on average 0.57 mm² (0.35; 0.79) or 7.6% larger in  ARPET . Lesion size between graders did not differ significantly. There was no statistically significant difference in relative enlargement rates between methods. There was poor to moderate agreement between graders when rating the experienced difficulty of each measurement.    Conclusion  Semi‐automated analysis of geographic atrophy with  RF  and  ARPET  is equally reliable and reproducible in clinical settings, despite both algorithms require frequent adjustment by users. The  ARPET  restricts size measurements to the central 5 mm, which limits its ability to fully track  GA  progression. Results of both tools are not interchangeable as measurements with  ARPET  result in larger lesion sizes.

acta ophthalmologica

Semi‐automated quantification of geographic atrophy with blue‐light autofluorescence and spectral‐domain optical coherence tomography: a comparison between the region finder and the advanced retinal pigment epithelium tool in the clinical setting