Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
Comparison of a mobile imaging device for anterior segment (MIDAS) with a commercially available portable and conventional slit-lamp imaging for cataract photography.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yong Dayna W W, Sheng Liang, Yong Rubin Hs, Chen David Z
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare cataract images obtained using portable slit-lamp devices with those taken from the standard slit-lamp built-in camera.
DESIGN: Prospective, single-center, comparative digital imaging validation study.
METHODS: A total of 198 slit-lamp images were taken from 66 patients with cataracts using a smartphone slit-lamp prototype ("MIDAS"), a tablet with a portable slit-lamp ("I.C.P."), and a slit-lamp with a custom-mounted digital camera ("ASC"). An ophthalmologist, an optometrist, and a family medicine resident independently graded the images according to Nuclear Opalescence (NO) and Nuclear Colour (NC) of the Lens Opacities Classification System III. The intraclass correlation (ICC) for the devices was calculated. Graders' confidence and subjective assessment of image quality were assessed through a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: For NO, ICC was fair for MIDAS (0.619, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.426 to 0.754) and I.C.P. (0.585, 95% CI = 0.373 to 0.733) but poor for ASC (0.394, 95% CI = 0.088 to 0.609). For NC, ICC was excellent for all (MIDAS, 0.837, 95% CI = 0.755 to 0.895; I.C.P., 0.851, 95% CI = 0.775 to 0.904; ASC, 0.892, 95% CI = 0.837 to 0.930). Grader confidence was the highest for ASC images (85.5%), followed by I.C.P. (69.1%) and MIDAS (65.6%). Subjective assessment of image quality was the highest for ASC images (96.5%), followed by I.C.P. (77.3%) and MIDAS (74.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Portable slit-lamp devices had excellent ICC for assessing NC and fair ICC for assessing NO. Graders expressed greater confidence and higher perceived image quality for the standard slit-lamp built-in camera.
DESIGN: Prospective, single-center, comparative digital imaging validation study.
METHODS: A total of 198 slit-lamp images were taken from 66 patients with cataracts using a smartphone slit-lamp prototype ("MIDAS"), a tablet with a portable slit-lamp ("I.C.P."), and a slit-lamp with a custom-mounted digital camera ("ASC"). An ophthalmologist, an optometrist, and a family medicine resident independently graded the images according to Nuclear Opalescence (NO) and Nuclear Colour (NC) of the Lens Opacities Classification System III. The intraclass correlation (ICC) for the devices was calculated. Graders' confidence and subjective assessment of image quality were assessed through a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: For NO, ICC was fair for MIDAS (0.619, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.426 to 0.754) and I.C.P. (0.585, 95% CI = 0.373 to 0.733) but poor for ASC (0.394, 95% CI = 0.088 to 0.609). For NC, ICC was excellent for all (MIDAS, 0.837, 95% CI = 0.755 to 0.895; I.C.P., 0.851, 95% CI = 0.775 to 0.904; ASC, 0.892, 95% CI = 0.837 to 0.930). Grader confidence was the highest for ASC images (85.5%), followed by I.C.P. (69.1%) and MIDAS (65.6%). Subjective assessment of image quality was the highest for ASC images (96.5%), followed by I.C.P. (77.3%) and MIDAS (74.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Portable slit-lamp devices had excellent ICC for assessing NC and fair ICC for assessing NO. Graders expressed greater confidence and higher perceived image quality for the standard slit-lamp built-in camera.