Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 11, 2025
Using Optical Coherence Tomography and Optokinetic Response As Structural and Functional Visual System Readouts in Mice and Rats
Published on: January 10, 2019
Impact of Artifacts From Optical Coherence Tomography Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Macula Scans on Detection of
Ang Li1, Atalie C Thompson1, Sanjay Asrani1
1Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Purpose:
To determine the prevalence of artifacts on segmented spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT) images and assess their impact on the interpretation of glaucomatous progression in the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) profile and macular thickness map.
Design:
Retrospective reliability analysis.
Methods:
Retrospective review of glaucoma and glaucoma suspect eyes imaged with SDOCT during a 1-month period. All cases had at least 4 sets of RNFL and macular images at 6-month intervals. SDOCT raw B-scans were examined to determine true progression and whether artifacts impacted the original interpretation of progression based on auto-segmented change maps. The co-prevalence of artifacts in the RNFL and macula was assessed, as well as the association of clinical factors with the likelihood of artifacts.
Results:
A total of 190 eyes with 760 sets of OCT RNFL and macular scans were included. Fifty percent (96/190) of eyes had artifacts, either in the circumpapillary RNFL (83/190; 43.68%) or the macula (57/190; 30.0%). Epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction were the most common artifacts. True progression was present on 39.5% (75/190) of scans overall. Among scans with artifacts, 23.9% (23/96) of artifacts masked true progression (ie, false-negative), 36.5% (35/96) led to an interpretation of false progression (ie, false-positive), and 39.6% (38/96) had no effect on the interpretation of progression. The presence of true progression on the RNFL scan was significantly associated with the presence of true progression on the macular scan (P < .001). Similarly, the presence of artifacts on the RNFL scan was significantly associated with artifacts on the macular scan (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, severe glaucoma, hypertension, and age were significantly associated with the presence of artifacts on RNFL (P < .05).
Conclusions:
Artifacts are highly prevalent on both circumpapillary RNFL and macular scans on SDOCT images acquired in a glaucoma clinic. Artifacts can lead to false-positive and false-negative interpretation of progression when using only the auto-segmentation change maps. Thus, careful examination of the raw B-scan images of both the RNFL and macula is critical to identify artifacts and true glaucoma progression.
