Reproducibility of In Vivo Corneal Confocal Microscopy Using an Automated Analysis Program for Detection of Diabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathy

PLoS One. 2015 Nov 5;10(11):e0142309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142309. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

Objective: In vivo Corneal Confocal Microscopy (IVCCM) is a validated, non-invasive test for diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) detection, but its utility is limited by the image analysis time and expertise required. We aimed to determine the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of a novel automated analysis program compared to manual analysis.

Methods: In a cross-sectional diagnostic study, 20 non-diabetes controls (mean age 41.4±17.3y, HbA1c 5.5±0.4%) and 26 participants with type 1 diabetes (42.8±16.9y, 8.0±1.9%) underwent two separate IVCCM examinations by one observer and a third by an independent observer. Along with nerve density and branch density, corneal nerve fibre length (CNFL) was obtained by manual analysis (CNFLMANUAL), a protocol in which images were manually selected for automated analysis (CNFLSEMI-AUTOMATED), and one in which selection and analysis were performed electronically (CNFLFULLY-AUTOMATED). Reproducibility of each protocol was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and, as a secondary objective, the method of Bland and Altman was used to explore agreement between protocols.

Results: Mean CNFLManual was 16.7±4.0, 13.9±4.2 mm/mm2 for non-diabetes controls and diabetes participants, while CNFLSemi-Automated was 10.2±3.3, 8.6±3.0 mm/mm2 and CNFLFully-Automated was 12.5±2.8, 10.9 ± 2.9 mm/mm2. Inter-observer ICC and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were 0.73(0.56, 0.84), 0.75(0.59, 0.85), and 0.78(0.63, 0.87), respectively (p = NS for all comparisons). Intra-observer ICC and 95%CI were 0.72(0.55, 0.83), 0.74(0.57, 0.85), and 0.84(0.73, 0.91), respectively (p<0.05 for CNFLFully-Automated compared to others). The other IVCCM parameters had substantially lower ICC compared to those for CNFL. CNFLSemi-Automated and CNFLFully-Automated underestimated CNFLManual by mean and 95%CI of 35.1(-4.5, 67.5)% and 21.0(-21.6, 46.1)%, respectively.

Conclusions: Despite an apparent measurement (underestimation) bias in comparison to the manual strategy of image analysis, fully-automated analysis preserves CNFL reproducibility. Future work must determine the diagnostic thresholds specific to the fully-automated measure of CNFL.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Cornea / pathology*
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / complications*
  • Diabetic Neuropathies / etiology*
  • Diabetic Neuropathies / pathology*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Microscopy, Confocal / methods
  • Middle Aged
  • Polyneuropathies / etiology*
  • Polyneuropathies / pathology*
  • Reproducibility of Results

Grants and funding

The study was funded by the JDRF Operating Grant No. 17-2008-715, website: http://www.jdrf.ca/ (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation). The authors wish to acknowledge the generous support of Randy and Jenny Frisch and The Harvey and Annice Frisch Family Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.