Deep Learning–Based Choroidal Boundary Detection in Geographic Atrophy Using Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: To evaluate the challenges and limitations of a deep learning model for automated choroidal boundary detection in eyes with geographic atrophy (GA) using spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT), and to assess the workflow efficiency of an AI-assisted manual verification approach. <b>Methods</b>: In this retrospective study, total 5723 scans (Heidelberg Spectralis) with GA were analyzed. A previously validated tool (NMI ChoroidAI) was used to segment the choroidal inner (CIB) and outer (COB) boundaries. We compared the "AI-assisted" workflow (automated segmentation followed by manual verification) against "manual segmentation only" in terms of accuracy and time consumption. Slice-wise boundary errors were graded as 0 (accurate), 1 (≤33% deviation), 2 (33-66% deviation), or 3 (>66% deviation). Outcomes included error rates and weighted F<sub>1</sub> score (and precision where applicable). Total time for manual-only segmentation versus AI-assisted verification was recorded. -Interreader variability was assessed between the two readers using intraclass correlation coefficient. <b>Results</b>: For CIB, only 5.2% of B-scans showed any deviation (strictly accurate in 94.8%), with weighted F<sub>1</sub> score 0.97 and precision 1.00. COB was more error-prone: 19.0% of B-scans showed deviation; however, when minor deviations were considered acceptable, COB acceptability increased to 94.2% (i.e., 5.8% remained >33% deviated). Only 13.2% of B-scans required minor manual correction. For a 97-scan volume, processing time decreased from an average of 7 h (manual only) to 45 min (AI + human verification), an approximate 90% reduction in manual effort. Inter-reader agreement was high (ICC 0.923 for CIB and 0.938 for COB). <b>Conclusions</b>: Although the deep learning model exhibits limitations in COB detection due to artifacts, it serves as a valuable assistive tool. Our model substantially reduces human effort, but mandatory human verification is required to correct boundary errors caused by hyper-transmission before use in clinical trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-03-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16050737
Primary Topic
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deep Learning–Based Choroidal Boundary Detection in Geographic Atrophy Using Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

Elham Rahmanipour, Adarsh Gadari, Sandeep Chandra Bollepalli, Soumya Sharma et al.
Diagnostics
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
article

Deep Learning–Based Choroidal Boundary Detection in Geographic Atrophy Using Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

Elham Rahmanipour, Adarsh Gadari, Sandeep Chandra Bollepalli, Soumya Sharma, C. de los Santos, Nasiq Hasan, Elham Sadeghi, James Whitley, Mario J Savaria, Shreyaa Lall, Jay Chhablani, Kiran Kumar Vupparaboina
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: To evaluate the challenges and limitations of a deep learning model for automated choroidal boundary detection in eyes with geographic atrophy (GA) using spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT), and to assess the workflow efficiency of an AI-assisted manual verification approach. <b>Methods</b>: In this retrospective study, total 5723 scans (Heidelberg Spectralis) with GA were analyzed. A previously validated tool (NMI ChoroidAI) was used to segment the choroidal inner (CIB) and outer (COB) boundaries. We compared the "AI-assisted" workflow (automated segmentation followed by manual verification) against "manual segmentation only" in terms of accuracy and time consumption. Slice-wise boundary errors were graded as 0 (accurate), 1 (≤33% deviation), 2 (33-66% deviation), or 3 (>66% deviation). Outcomes included error rates and weighted F<sub>1</sub> score (and precision where applicable). Total time for manual-only segmentation versus AI-assisted verification was recorded. -Interreader variability was assessed between the two readers using intraclass correlation coefficient. <b>Results</b>: For CIB, only 5.2% of B-scans showed any deviation (strictly accurate in 94.8%), with weighted F<sub>1</sub> score 0.97 and precision 1.00. COB was more error-prone: 19.0% of B-scans showed deviation; however, when minor deviations were considered acceptable, COB acceptability increased to 94.2% (i.e., 5.8% remained >33% deviated). Only 13.2% of B-scans required minor manual correction. For a 97-scan volume, processing time decreased from an average of 7 h (manual only) to 45 min (AI + human verification), an approximate 90% reduction in manual effort. Inter-reader agreement was high (ICC 0.923 for CIB and 0.938 for COB). <b>Conclusions</b>: Although the deep learning model exhibits limitations in COB detection due to artifacts, it serves as a valuable assistive tool. Our model substantially reduces human effort, but mandatory human verification is required to correct boundary errors caused by hyper-transmission before use in clinical trials.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(5)
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (IR), University of Pittsburgh (US), OSRAM (United States) (US), Fundación para la Investigación, Docencia y Prevención del Cáncer (AR), Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires (AR), Fundación Centro de Estudios Infectológicos (AR), University of Toledo (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 36%
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.