However, having graders evaluate RVSV-OCT montages to assess for plus or pre-plus disease, or even the single clinician determining plus or pre-plus at the bedside, had limitations. For example, in the RVSV-OCT versus conventional retina view analysis, central artifact from automated image processing errors obscured retinal vessel patterns and resulted in two RVSV-OCT montages being deemed ungradable by at least one grader. Additionally, in the RVSV-OCT versus fundus photograph analysis, the presence of artifact contributed to graders’ preference for the fundus photograph over the RVSV-OCT in a majority of cases, despite graders’ observations that vessel visualization on the fundus photograph was impacted by fundus pigmentation. In these RVSV-OCT montages, all from eyes with plus or pre-plus disease on clinical examination, this central artifact itself may be an indication of the presence of dilated and tortuous retinal vessels, comparable to the VASO score.
37 We have recently developed a new version of the segmentation algorithm, which may improve autosegmentation accuracy and decrease RVSV-OCT artifact in the future. Graders also frequently disagreed on plus, pre-plus, or neither grades, despite high agreement on relative vascular disease severity ranks. Intergrader variation in the diagnosis of plus disease has been well documented in the literature,
48–50 and may be attributable to grader-specific biases to undercall or overcall pre-plus and plus disease.
51,52 This can also apply to a single clinician who determined the plus disease at the bedside (our gold standard). The relatively low intergrader agreement for plus, pre-plus, or neither grades may therefore be due not to limitations of the RVSV-OCT montages themselves, but to unique disease thresholds for each grader, despite the existence of standardized grading criteria. We attempted to minimize this limitation by providing standardized photographs of pre-plus and plus disease and instructing graders to grade the RVSV-OCT based on standardized criteria, but our findings suggest that some degree of bias remained. In a future study, the application of either an objective, semi- or fully automatic plus disease classification system (i.e., machine learning), or a rigorous three-grader consensus, to these RVSV-OCT images and to the reference color fundus image, may address this bias. Finally, reviewer comment that there was decreased vessel dilation on RVSV-OCT suggests that the process of restricting volumetric OCT data to a narrow axial window bracketed around the RPE may impair the representation of venous dilation on RVSV-OCT. Previous work suggests that retinal vessels are significantly wider than their corresponding shadows, as measured on spectral domain OCT.
53 Therefore a potential explanation for this decreased representation of vessel dilation is that the RVSV-OCT illustrates the relatively narrow retinal vessel shadows on the hyperreflective RPE, rather than the vessels themselves. This may in part explain the low sensitivity RVSV-OCT gradings had for detecting plus disease; in the majority of instances of missed plus disease, graders cited insufficient dilation for plus disease in their grading rationale.