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

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background/Objectives: 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. Methods: In this retrospective study, total 5,723 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 F₁-score (and precision where applicable). Total time for manual-only segmentation versus AI-assisted verification was recorded .Inter-reader variability was assessed between the two readers using intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: For CIB, only 5.2% of B-scans showed any deviation (strictly accurate in 94.8%), with weighted F₁-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 hours (manual only) to 45 minutes (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). Conclusions: 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.

Article activity feed