Applicability of oculomics for individual risk prediction: Repeatability and robustness of retinal Fractal Dimension using DART and AutoMorph
This work addresses the need for reliable oculomics methods in medical imaging for predicting individual health risks, though it is incremental as it evaluates existing tools on new datasets.
The study investigated the repeatability and robustness of Fractal Dimension (FD) in retinal images for individual risk prediction, finding that DART achieved higher repeatability (e.g., ICC 0.8153) and lower measurement noise (median λ 1.67% with exclusions) than AutoMorph, suggesting potential for detecting small longitudinal changes.
Purpose: To investigate whether Fractal Dimension (FD)-based oculomics could be used for individual risk prediction by evaluating repeatability and robustness. Methods: We used two datasets: Caledonia, healthy adults imaged multiple times in quick succession for research (26 subjects, 39 eyes, 377 colour fundus images), and GRAPE, glaucoma patients with baseline and follow-up visits (106 subjects, 196 eyes, 392 images). Mean follow-up time was 18.3 months in GRAPE, thus it provides a pessimistic lower-bound as vasculature could change. FD was computed with DART and AutoMorph. Image quality was assessed with QuickQual, but no images were initially excluded. Pearson, Spearman, and Intraclass Correlation (ICC) were used for population-level repeatability. For individual-level repeatability, we introduce measurement noise parameter λ which is within-eye Standard Deviation (SD) of FD measurements in units of between-eyes SD. Results: In Caledonia, ICC was 0.8153 for DART and 0.5779 for AutoMorph, Pearson/Spearman correlation (first and last image) 0.7857/0.7824 for DART, and 0.3933/0.6253 for AutoMorph. In GRAPE, Pearson/Spearman correlation (first and next visit) was 0.7479/0.7474 for DART, and 0.7109/0.7208 for AutoMorph (all p<0.0001). Median λ in Caledonia without exclusions was 3.55\% for DART and 12.65\% for AutoMorph, and improved to up to 1.67\% and 6.64\% with quality-based exclusions, respectively. Quality exclusions primarily mitigated large outliers. Worst quality in an eye correlated strongly with λ (Pearson 0.5350-0.7550, depending on dataset and method, all p<0.0001). Conclusions: Repeatability was sufficient for individual-level predictions in heterogeneous populations. DART performed better on all metrics and might be able to detect small, longitudinal changes, highlighting the potential of robust methods.