Incremental nature of anterior eye grading scales determined by objective image analysis

Aim: To use previously validated image analysis techniques to determine the incremental nature of printed subjective anterior eye grading scales. Methods: A purpose designed computer program was written to detect edges using a 3×3 kernal and to extract colour planes in the selected area of an image. Annunziato and Efron pictorial, and CCLRU and Vistakon-Synoptik photographic grades of bulbar hyperaemia, palpebral hyperaemia roughness, and corneal staining were analysed. Results: The increments of the grading scales were best described by a quadratic rather than a linear function. Edge detection and colour extraction image analysis for bulbar hyperaemia (r2 = 0.35−0.99), palpebral hyperaemia (r2 = 0.71−0.99), palpebral roughness (r2 = 0.30−0.94), and corneal staining (r2 = 0.57−0.99) correlated well with scale grades, although the increments varied in magnitude and direction between different scales. Repeated image analysis measures had a 95% confidence interval of between 0.02 (colour extraction) and 0.10 (edge detection) scale units (on a 0–4 scale). Conclusion: The printed grading scales were more sensitive for grading features of low severity, but grades were not comparable between grading scales. Palpebral hyperaemia and staining grading is complicated by the variable presentations possible. Image analysis techniques are 6–35 times more repeatable than subjective grading, with a sensitivity of 1.2–2.8% of the scale.

[1]  M. Lloyd Lies, statistics, and clinical significance , 1992 .

[2]  M Guillon,et al.  Objective Measurement of Contact Lens-Induced Conjunctival Redness , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[3]  W. Long,et al.  Characteristics of corneal staining in hydrogel contact lens wearers. , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[4]  Paul Fieguth,et al.  Automated measurement of bulbar redness. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  R. Mandell Slit lamp classification system. , 1987, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[6]  Nathan Efron,et al.  Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[7]  A. Kruse,et al.  Tarsal abnormalities: a new grading system. , 1998, The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.

[8]  N Efron,et al.  Grading scales for contact lens complications , 1998, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[9]  F W Fitzke,et al.  A new computer assisted objective method for quantifying vascular changes of the bulbar conjunctivae. , 1996, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[10]  E. Papas,et al.  Key factors in the subjective and objective assessment of conjunctival erythema. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  H. Solan,et al.  Effect of Luminance on Visual Evoked Potential Amplitudes in Normal and Disabled Readers , 1998, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[12]  T. Nishida,et al.  A novel grading method for superficial punctate keratopathy magnitude and its correlation with corneal epithelial permeability. , 2003, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  M. Maldonado,et al.  Reproducibility of digital image analysis for measuring corneal haze after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. , 1997, American journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  I L Bailey,et al.  Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  C W McMonnies,et al.  Assessment of Conjunctival Hyperemia in Contact Lens Wearers. Part II , 1987, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[16]  Mandell Rb,et al.  Slit lamp classification system. , 1987 .

[17]  R. Woods Quantitative slit lamp observations in contact lens practice , 1989 .

[18]  N. Pritchard,et al.  Evaluation of the range of areas of the fluorescein staining patterns of the tarsal conjunctiva in man , 2005, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[19]  F Horak,et al.  Quantification of conjunctival vascular reaction by digital imaging. , 1996, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[20]  J M Coggins,et al.  Automatic quantitative measurement of ocular hyperemia. , 1995, Current eye research.

[21]  B. Zweifach,et al.  Analysis of microvascular network in bulbar conjunctiva by image processing. , 1987, International journal of microcirculation, clinical and experimental.

[22]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical monitoring of ocular physiology using digital image analysis. , 2003, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[23]  T. Liesegang Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Efron N,∗ Morgan PB, Katsara SS. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2001;21:17–29. , 2001 .

[24]  A. Alm,et al.  Image analysis of conjunctival hyperemia , 1991, Acta ophthalmologica.

[25]  Trefford Simpson,et al.  The Repeatability of Discrete and Continuous Anterior Segment Grading Scales , 2000, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[26]  R. Woods,et al.  Clinical Grading of the Upper Palpebral Conjunctiva of Non-Contact Lens Wearers , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.