ArticlePloS one2024
Inter-rater reliability in labeling quality and pathological features of retinal OCT scans: A customized annotation software approach.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: A systematic review with network meta-analysis.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Pooled it
- Comprehensive Review of Open-Source Fundus Image Databases for Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Benchmarking diffusion models against state-of-the-art architectures for OCT fluid biomarker segmentation.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesVarious imaging features on optical coherence tomography (OCT) are crucial for identifying and defining disease progression. Establishing a consensus on these imaging features is essential, particularly for training deep learning models for disease classification. This study aims to analyze the inter-rater reliability in labeling the quality and common imaging signatures of retinal OCT scans.
methods500 OCT scans obtained from CIRRUS HD-OCT 5000 devices were displayed at 512x1024x128 resolution on a customizable, in-house annotation software. Each patient's eye was represented by 16 random scans. Two masked reviewers independently labeled the quality and specific pathological features of each scan. Evaluated features included overall image quality, presence of fovea, and disease signatures including subretinal fluid (SRF), intraretinal fluid (IRF), drusen, pigment epithelial detachment (PED), and hyperreflective material. The raw percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient were used to evaluate concurrence between the two sets of labels.
resultsOur analysis revealed κ = 0.60 for the inter-rater reliability of overall scan quality, indicating substantial agreement. In contrast, there was slight agreement in determining the cause of poor image quality (κ = 0.18). The binary determination of presence and absence of retinal disease signatures showed almost complete agreement between reviewers (κ = 0.85). Specific retinal pathologies, such as the foveal location of the scan (0.78), IRF (0.63), drusen (0.73), and PED (0.87), exhibited substantial concordance. However, less agreement was found in identifying SRF (0.52), hyperreflective dots (0.41), and hyperreflective foci (0.33).
conclusionsOur study demonstrates significant inter-rater reliability in labeling the quality and retinal pathologies on OCT scans. While some features show stronger agreement than others, these standardized labels can be utilized to create automated machine learning tools for diagnosing retinal diseases and capturing valuable pathological features in each scan. This standardization will aid in the consistency of medical diagnoses and enhance the accessibility of OCT diagnostic tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.