Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244828

Need for manual segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Supriya Dabir 1,*, Vaidehi Bhatt 2, Deepak Bhatt 3, Mohan Rajan 1, Preetam Samant 4, Sivakumar Munusamy 1, C A B Webers 5, T T J M Berendschot 5
Editor: Alfred S Lewin6
PMCID: PMC7775057  PMID: 33382865

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the characteristics of eyes that had manual vs. automated segmentation of choroidal neovascular membrane (CNVM) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).

Methods

All patients with CNVM underwent OCTA using the Zeiss Angioplex Cirrus 5000. Slabs of the avascular outer retina, outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) region and choriocapillaris were generated. Manual segmentation was done when there were significant segmentation artifacts. Presence of activity of CNVM was adjudged by the presence of subretinal fluid (SRF) on structural OCT and was compared to activity detected on en face OCTA slabs based on well-defined criteria.

Results

Eighty-one eyes of 81 patients were recruited of which manual segmentation was required in 46 (57%). Eyes with automated segmentation had significantly more CNVM in the ORCC (75%) whereas those with manual segmentation had deeper CNVM (sub-RPE = 22%, intra-PED = 22%) (p<0.001). Twenty eyes (25%) were found to have active CNVM on both the structural OCT and OCTA while an additional 19 eyes were presumed to have active CNVM on OCTA alone. There was only modest concordance between disease activity detected using structural OCT and OCTA (Kappa = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.64).

Conclusions

Manual segmentation of OCTA is required in more than 50% eyes with CNVM and this progressively increases with increasing depth of CNVM location from the ORCC to below the RPE. There is moderate concordance between OCTA and structural OCT in determining CNVM activity.

Introduction

Age related choroidal neovascular membrane (CNVM) is the leading cause of severe vision loss in the elderly [1, 2]. Ancillary testing of CNVM for disease detection as well as activity has undergone paradigm shifts over the past decade, where the non-invasive structural optical coherence tomography (OCT) has almost entirely replaced the more invasive fluorescein angiography (FFA) [2, 3]. Recent evidence shows that there is a high level of concordance in detecting disease activity between OCT and FFA at baseline, though this concordance drops off once treatment is initiated with anti-VEGF agents [4]. More recently, optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) that enables visualization of the different vascular layers of the retina and choroid has been extensively used to detect the presence of CNVM as well as to determine disease activity [58]. Both, qualitative and qualitative metrics have been developed in the assessment of OCTA images to sharpen its resemblance to disease severity and activity [911]. Additionally, OCTA has also enabled us to detect subclinical cases of CNVM where a neovascular complex exists without clinical signs of disease activity [12]. However, the role of OCTA in management of CNVM is still evolving.

There are many different commercially available OCTA machines based on spectral domain and swept source (SS) OCT technology [6]. Each of these uses a different proprietary algorithm to produce automated en face OCTA slabs of the superficial and deep capillary plexus in the inner retina, avascular outer retina, outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) region and choriocapillaris. Most studies published on use of OCTA in CNVM utilize the automated image analysis algorithms provided by the manufacturer to determine disease characteristics [6, 13]. However, improper segmentation commonly introduces artifacts that lead to incomplete visualization of the CNVM in en face images, especially in active cases [14, 15]. Incomplete or inaccurate segmentation has wider implications in management of AMD. There is an increased likelihood of missing small early networks due to this error. Although exudation on SD-OCT in the absence of membrane on OCTA would be usually treated, but there is a distinct possibility of missing a small non-exudative membrane on OCTA due to segmentation errors. In such a scenario, the patient would be diagnosed as dry AMD and followed-up at a longer interval vis-à-vis a closer follow-up if a non-exudative membrane were detected on OCTA. Additionally, the configuration and dimensions of the network are very dependent on the section been evaluated. Automated segmentation slabs may not truly reflect the widest area of network and / or its true configuration. This can be overcome by manually readjusting the contours of the slabs to target vascular layers of special interest and generate custom en face images.

A comparison between manual and automated segmentation in eyes with active and inactive CNVM has been done in the past where Siggel et al. show that accuracy of the SS-OCTA in detecting CNVM decreases as we image deeper into the retina [16]. However, there is not enough literature studying this aspect of OCTA. In this study, we therefore compared the characteristics of eyes that had manual vs. automated analysis of CNVM using OCTA.

Methods

This was a cross sectional observational study on consecutive consenting patients with CNVM who were referred to our center, Rajan eye care hospital Pvt Ltd, Chennai, for OCTA between January 2018 and December 2019. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and was carried out as per the tenets of the declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrollment.

All patients with CNVM, with or without a history of prior anti-VEGF therapy, and willing to participate in the study were recruited. The exclusion criteria were: eyes with significant sub-retinal hemorrhage and eyes with senile cataracts or poor mydriasis precluding reliable OCTA, eyes having type 3 CNVM and aneurysmal type 1 CNVM, and eyes with any other ocular comorbidity. Before performing OCTA, all patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination including evaluation of the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), dilated slit lamp evaluation of the anterior segment and thorough evaluation of the posterior segment. Presence of CNVM was confirmed on clinical examination by a fellowship—trained retina surgeon and its presence was confirmed by visualization of the CNVM on structural OCT.

Optical coherence tomography angiography

Patients then underwent OCTA assessment of the involved eye with CNVM using the Cirrus 5000 Zeiss Angioplex (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA). A well-trained technician acquired 6X6 scans centered on the fovea. Automated en face retinal angiograms of the superficial and deep retina, avascular outer retina, ORCC and choriocapillaris were created using the proprietary algorithms provided by the manufacturer. All images were interpreted and graded by an experienced clinician (DB). All OCTA images were analyzed for the need of manual vs automated segmentation by two experienced clinicians (DB and SD) A good inter-grader reliability of 0.93 was obtained.

In cases where segmentation artifacts made it difficult to visualize the entire CNVM complex, manual segmentation was done using tools in the software and custom slabs were created to visualize the CNVM in its entirety, as per protocols described by Siggel et al. [16].

Briefly, we moved the two boundaries standard segmentation pattern such that the CNVM was completely visualized. The analysis software was then utilized to analyze the image. Minimum signal strength of 7/10 was required to register the scan for analysis without any motion artifacts. Based on vascular characteristics observed on the en face OCTA, the CNVM was classified as active as per descriptions given by Coscas et al. [11]. In summary, the CNVM was deemed to be active when it was well-defined with numerous tiny branching capillaries, with anastomoses, peripheral loops and arcades at the vessel termini and/or presence of a hypo-intense halo around the CNVM (Fig 1).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

(a): Showing OCTA and structural OCT from an eye with active CNVM, with the use of automated segmentation, where the outer margins are blurred. (b): Showing OCTA and structural OCT from an eye with active CNVM, with the use of manual segmentation where the peripheral anastomoses (White arrow), which are the hallmark of activity, is well appreciated.

An inactive CNVM was recorded when it had long and large mature linear vessels and a dead tree appearance at the vessel termini without peripheral anastomosis, loops, or arcades (Fig 2).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(a): Showing OCTA and structural OCT from an eye with inactive CNVM, with the use of automated segmentation, with poorly defined network. (b): Showing OCTA and structural OCT from an eye with inactive CNVM, with the use of manual segmentation where the characteristic dead-tree appearance of network, which is the hallmark of end-stage disease, is well appreciated.

In addition to the OCTA, patients also underwent structural OCT in the affected eyes with CNVM (Cirrus HD OCT, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA). Presence of sub-retinal fluid (SRF) with or without intra-retinal fluid and cystoid spaces was considered to be active disease and this was used as gold standard for comparison of disease activity with OCTA. The same experienced examiner (DB) evaluated both the OCTA and OCT images but not simultaneously, such that he was masked for the lesion characteristics in one modality when grading disease activity in the other modality. The primary outcome measure was comparison between OCTA characteristics of eyes graded using the automated algorithm vs. eyes that required a manual segmentation. Concordance about the activity of the CNVM between OCTA and OCT was also assessed.

Statistical analysis

All continuous variables were described as means with standard deviation and categorical variables were described as proportions (n, %). Differences between groups were analyzed using chi-square statistics and independent T-tests. The kappa statistic with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the concordance in disease activity between OCTA and OCT. All statistical analyses were done with SPSS statistical software (version 25, IBM Corp, Armonk, USA). A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We included 81 eyes of 81 patients with CNVM who satisfied inclusion criteria. Automated segmentation was reliable in 35 eyes (43%) while manual segmentation was required in the remaining 46 (57%). Table 1 shows a comparison between characteristics of eyes that had manual vs. automated image analysis. Eyes that were amenable to automated analysis had the CNVM predominantly in the ORCC whereas those that needed manual segmentation had a deeper location of the CNVM, with equal numbers in the sub-RPE and intra-PED regions (Table 1). Significantly more eyes in the automated OCTA group showed presence of SRF on structural OCT, but there was no difference in number of eyes with active disease based on OCTA characteristics. Automated segmentation did not depend upon type of CNVM either (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptives for automated and manual segmentation.

Variable Description Segmentation
Automated Manual p
Number of eyes 35 46
Type of CNVM Type 1 CNVM 6 (17%) 12 (26%) 0.34
Type 2 CNVM 29 (83%) 34 (74%)
Location Avascular 1 (3%) 3 (7%) <0.001
Choriocapillaris 2 (6%) 5 (11%)
Choroidal CNVM 0 2 (4%)
Deep vascular plexus 1 (3%) 3 (7%)
Deep plexus and Choriocapillaris 0 1 (2%)
Intra-PED 0 10 (22%)
ORCC 26 (74%) 8 (17%)
RPE-RPE Fit 0 4 (8%)
SUB-RPE 5 (14%) 10 (22%)
SRF Yes 13 (37%) 7 (15%) 0.023
Activity Yes 20 (57%) 19 (41%) 0.16
Halo around CNVM Yes 5 (14%) 7 (15%) 0.74
Peripheral arcades Yes 14 (40%) 9 (20%) 0.073
Terminal Anastomosis Yes 12 (34%) 11 (24%) 0.46

Out of the 81 eyes recruited, 18 (22%) had type 1 CNVM and the remaining 63 (78%) had type 2 CNVM. A comparison between eyes with type 1 and type 2 CNVM showed that significantly more eyes in the type 1 group (n = 10, 56%) had presence of SRF on structural OCT compared to type 2 eyes (n = 10, 16%) (p<0.001). Eyes with type 1 disease had marginally higher proportion of eyes detected as active on OCTA (n = 12, 67%) compared to type 2 disease (n = 27, 43%) (p = 0.075).

Of the total of 81 eyes, 20 eyes (25%) were found to have active CNVM on the structural OCT on account of SRF whereas 39 eyes (47%) were found to harbor active CNVM on OCTA. On cross tabulating disease activity detected on OCT and OCTA (Table 2), we found that almost all eyes with activity on OCT showed active CNVM on OCTA. However, there was only modest concordance between disease activity detected using OCT and OCTA (Kappa = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.64) with half the eyes showing active CNVM on OCTA demonstrating no signs of disease activity on structural OCT. On OCTA, the hypo-reflective halo around the CNVM was the least common finding in active lesions, both in the automated (25%) and manual (32%) segmentation groups.

Table 2. Activity on OCTA versus activity on structural OCT.

Activity on OCTA Total
Yes No
Activity on structural OCT Yes 19 (49%) 1 (2%) 20 (25%)
No 20 (51%) 41 (98%) 61 (75%)
Total 39 (100%) 42 (100%) 81 (100%)

Discussion

We found that a majority of eyes with CNVM that could be successfully analyzed using automated segmentation had the CNVM complex in the ORCC whereas more than half the eyes that required manual segmentation had a deeper CNVM complex, i.e. either sub-RPE or intra-PED or in the choriocapillaris. Additionally, we noted that only half the eyes deemed to have active CNVM on OCTA demonstrated signs of disease activity on structural OCT. Branching pattern with peripheral loops, anastomosis and arcades were the main findings that lead us to label a CNVM as active while halo around the CNVM was the least helpful finding seen in only a third of the eyes. A significantly greater number of eyes with type 1 CNVM had SRF compared to type 2 eyes.

Ever since the advent of OCTA for evaluation of retinal and choroidal vascular diseases nearly a decade ago, it has been applied to study the characteristics of CNVM, especially secondary to CNVM [2, 17, 18]. Coscas et al. described the qualitative features of CNVM in terms of the branching pattern to determine disease activity [11]. We used the same features to determine activity in our study. However, most studies have used the automated segmentation available with the OCTA machines to create the vascular slabs, though this may not always be feasible due to segmentation artifacts that make OCTA interpretation difficult and inaccurate [14, 15]. We found that automated segmentation provided by the machine was reliable in less than half the cases in our series. In an excellent study published recently, Siggel et al. studied 102 eyes to determine the sensitivity and specificity of automated versus manually segmented OCTA images to detect presence of CNVM [16]. They showed that automated slabs at the ORCC had the highest ability to detect CNVM compared to the gold standard FFA, while slabs at the choriocapillaris level had the lowest. However, sensitivity of detection could be increased substantially using manual segmentation to produce custom slabs. They also found a significantly higher concordance between FFA and OCTA in detecting CNVM when manual segmentation was used as opposed to only moderate concordance when automated segmentation was used. Unfortunately, they did not comment on CNVM activity. Yet, our data coupled with theirs clearly shows that deeper CNVM complexes below the RPE require manual segmentation much more often than complexes in the ORCC.

Manual segmentation requires a lot of effort and time, has a steep learning curve and hence may be difficult to perform in high volume retina clinics where time is at a premium. Lauermann et al. have shown that segmentation artifacts occur most often in CNVM eyes [15]. However, when structural OCT shows a sub-RPE CNVM complex, interpreting the OCTA images from automated segmentation should be done with caution and should be relied upon only when the entire CNVM complex is visualized without any segmentation or motion artifacts. Retina specialists should be aware that manual segmentation would be needed on nearly half the occasions and hence additional time should be budgeted for this. Since OCTA utilizes differences in the phase and intensity information contained within sequential B-scans performed at the same position, it is possible that the RPE, especially in diseased states, interferes with signal phase and intensity transmission, making automated segmentation unreliable.

We were surprised to find that only half the eyes that were labeled as active CNVM on OCTA actually showed signs of disease activity on the structural OCT. A recent post-hoc analysis from the HARBOR study showed that the concordance between FFA and OCT in detecting disease activity was 99% in treatment naïve eyes with CNVM while this dropped to 36% at 2 years following treatment with anti-VEGF agents [4]. Considering our dataset, where there were many eyes with inactive disease, possibly due to varying levels of anti-VEGF exposure, we believe that structural OCT was unable to pick up disease activity whereas OCTA demonstrated this better. If this were indeed true, then eyes where treatment was withheld due to no activity on OCT but activity on OCTA, would develop signs of activity on OCT subsequently and require retreatment. This is what is seen in real-world clinical practice, where lack of a reliable structural indicator of CNVM activity on OCT has led us to adopt the treat and extent treatment regimen. With OCTA giving us a potentially better indication of disease activity, it may be prudent to adopt it for determining treatment protocols for individual patients, though our study is not adequately powered to make robust recommendations. On similar lines, a recently published by Corvi et al found that OCTA appears to be superior to other imaging modalities (FFA, ICGA and OCTA) for identification of CNVM in eyes with macular atrophy [19]. However, OCTA is still evolving and more data is required before we use it ahead of structural OCT to determine disease activity.

This study has a couple of limitations, namely the lack of accurate history of anti-VEGF treatment and lack of FFA to compare disease activity. Additionally, the smaller number of eyes with type 1 disease, which is seen more often in clinical practice, makes it difficult to make generalized recommendations, although we feel that the trends may be applicable to most cases. On the other hand, the advantages of this study are the masking of the grader to outputs from other modalities at the time of grading, use of standardized and well-established definitions of CNVM activity on OCTA and use of an experienced grader capable of performing manual segmentation accurately when indicated.

In conclusion, OCTA requires manual segmentation to generate custom slabs and visualize the vasculature of interest whenever artifacts arise from automated segmentation. Need for manual segmentation progressively increases from CNVM in the ORCC to below the RPE and choriocapillaris. There is only a moderate concordance between OCTA and structural OCT in determining CNVM activity at present.

Supporting information

S1 File. Minimal anonymized data.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Rajan eye care pvt ltd, Chennai, provided support in the form of salaries for authors (Dabir, Rajan, Sivakumar) but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Maastricht University is funding the article processing fees.

References

  • 1.Friedman DS, O’Colmain BJ, Munoz B. The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print 2004. 10.1001/archopht.122.4.564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mitchell P, Liew G, Gopinath B, et al. Age-related macular degeneration. The Lancet. Epub ahead of print 2018. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31550-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schmidt-Erfurth U, Waldstein SM. A paradigm shift in imaging biomarkers in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. Epub ahead of print 2016. 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2015.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Khurana RN, Hill L, Ghanekar A, et al. Agreement of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography with Fluorescein Leakage in Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: Post Hoc Analysis of the HARBOR Study. Ophthalmol Retin. Epub ahead of print 16 May 2020. 10.1016/j.oret.2020.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gao SS, Jia Y, Zhang M, et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Epub ahead of print 2016. 10.1167/iovs.15-19043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kashani AH, Chen CL, Gahm JK, et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography: A comprehensive review of current methods and clinical applications. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. Epub ahead of print 2017. 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Told R, Sacu S, Hecht A, et al. Comparison of SD-Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography and Indocyanine Green Angiography in Type 1 and 2 Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59(6):2393–2400. 10.1167/iovs.17-22902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Corvi F, Cozzi M, Barbolini E, et al. Comparison Between Several Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Devices And Indocyanine Green Angiography Of Choroidal Neovascularization. Retina. 2020;40(5):873–880. 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002471 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jia Y, Bailey ST, Wilson DJ, et al. Quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography of choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. Epub ahead of print 2014. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Au A, Hou K, Dávila JP, et al. Volumetric analysis of vascularized serous pigment epithelial detachment progression in neovascular agerelated macular degeneration using optical coherence tomography angiography. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Epub ahead of print 2019. 10.1167/iovs.18-26478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Coscas F, Lupidi M, Boulet JF, et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography in exudative age-related macular degeneration: A predictive model for treatment decisions. Br J Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print 2019. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yang J, Zhang Q, Motulsky EH, et al. Two-Year Risk of Exudation in Eyes with Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Subclinical Neovascularization Detected with Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography. Am J Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print 2019. 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.06.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rosenfeld PJ, Durbin MK, Roisman L, et al. ZEISS AngioplexTM Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography: Technical Aspects. Dev Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print 2016. 10.1159/000442773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Spaide RF, Fujimoto JG, Waheed NK. Image artifacts in Optical coherence tomography angiography. Retina. Epub ahead of print 2015. 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lauermann JL, Woetzel AK, Treder M, et al. Prevalences of segmentation errors and motion artifacts in OCT-angiography differ among retinal diseases. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print 2018. 10.1007/s00417-018-4053-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Siggel R, Spital C, Lentzsch A, et al. Comparison of Automated versus Manually Modified OCT Angiography En Face Slabs for Detection of Choroidal Neovascularization. Ophthalmol Retin. Epub ahead of print 2020. 10.1016/j.oret.2019.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Al-Sheikh M, Iafe NA, Phasukkijwatana N, et al. Biomarkers of Neovascular Activity in Age-related Macular Degeneration Using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography. Retina. Epub ahead of print 2018. 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sambhav K, Grover S, Chalam K V. The application of optical coherence tomography angiography in retinal diseases. Surv Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print 2017. 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Corvi F,Cozzi M, Invernizzi A, et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography for detection of macular neovascularization associated with atrophy in age related macular degeneration. Epub ahead of print, 2020. July 3 Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020; 10.1007/s00417-020-04821-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alfred S Lewin

11 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31372

Need for manual segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dabir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please change the abbreviation MNV to CNV, which is the conventional usage.  Two graders are needed to evaluate the lesions using OCTA, and present the agreement between graders..

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.].   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Rajan Eye Care Pvt Ltd

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The manuscript is interesting.

2. The abbreviation MNV may be replaced by CNV, which is more conventionally used.

3. Please mark the ‘peripheral anastomoses’ in figure 1b,

4. What is the significance of figure 2, showing 3 different eyes? Rather, it would add value to present images of the case examples exhibiting statistical difference between automated and manual segmentation. For example, cases where automated slabs failed to show deeper CNV, while manual segmentation detected the deeper CNVs

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor

Thanks very much for asking me to review this study entitled “Need for manual segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography of neovascular age-related macular degeneration”

The study is interesting but I have some concern about several points:

- I suggest to not start the paper with “Age related macular neovascularization (MNV)” it is weird.

- Introduction: “More recently, optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) that enables visualization of the different vascular layers of the retina and choroid has been extensively used to detect the presence of MNV as well as to determine disease activity.5,6” I suggest to reference also: 1) Comparison of SD-Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography and Indocyanine Green Angiography in Type 1 and 2 Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-22902) and 2) Comparison between several optical coherence tomography angiography devices and indocyanine green angiography of choroidal neovascularization (doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002471.)

- In the introduction the purpose of the authors should be explained better. I mean, it is hard to understand the reason of this study.

- Consecutive eyes with MNV were included. What about Type 3 MNV or aneurysmal Type 1 MNV?

- The disease activity based on OCTA has no reason here. It cannot be evaluated in this way. The definition of active and inactive MNV based on the appearance of the vessels it is not supported. There are some MNV with large mature linear vessels and a dead tree appearance and subretinal fluid, does it mean that is not active? The appearance of the vessels is more related to the “age” of the lesion rather than the activity. I suggest to remove all the part related to the activity evaluation. Moreover, this is not a prospective study but a cross-sectional study. It is a bet to assess the activity of the lesion in this way and it has no reason to be presented.

- Two graders are needed to evaluate the lesions using OCTA. And agreement between graders should be presented.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244828.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Dec 2020

Reply to the reviewers’ comments

Reviewer Number Original comments of the reviewer Reply by the author(s)

Journal Requirements 1 Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We have made the necessary changes.

Journal Requirements 2 Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants which has been included in the Methods section of manuscript.

Journal Requirements 3 We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. We do not have any restriction on sharing the dataset and have upload the minimal anonymized dataset. The same has been mentioned in the cover letter too.

Journal Requirements 4 Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.].

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Rajan Eye Care Pvt Ltd

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests.

We have made the necessary changes in Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement, and the same have also been included in the Cover letter.

Journal Requirements 5 Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. We have made the necessary changes.

Reviewer #1: 1 The manuscript is interesting. Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer #1: 2 The abbreviation MNV may be replaced by CNV, which is more conventionally used. We agree with the reviewers’ suggestion. We have made the necessary changes.

Reviewer #1: 3 3. Please mark the ‘peripheral anastomoses’ in figure 1b, The marking of ‘peripheral anastomoses’ has been included in the modified figure 1b.

Reviewer #1: 4 What is the significance of figure 2, showing 3 different eyes? Rather, it would add value to present images of the case examples exhibiting statistical difference between automated and manual segmentation. For example, cases where automated slabs failed to show deeper CNV, while manual segmentation detected the deeper CNVs

We agree with the reviewers’ suggestion. We have provided the modified image as requested.

Reviewer #2: 1 I suggest to not start the paper with “Age related macular neovascularization (MNV)” it is weird.

We agree with the reviewers’ suggestion. We have made the necessary changes.

Reviewer #2: 2

Introduction: “More recently, optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) that enables visualization of the different vascular layers of the retina and choroid has been extensively used to detect the presence of MNV as well as to determine disease activity.5,6” I suggest to reference also: 1) Comparison of SD-Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography and Indocyanine Green Angiography in Type 1 and 2 Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-22902) and 2) Comparison between several optical coherence tomography angiography devices and indocyanine green angiography of choroidal neovascularization (doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002471.)

Thank you for this important suggestion. We have included both the references in our manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 3

In the introduction the purpose of the authors should be explained better. I mean, it is hard to understand the reason of this study.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have modified the introduction accordingly.

Reviewer #2: 4 Consecutive eyes with MNV were included. What about Type 3 MNV or aneurysmal Type 1 MNV?

In our study, we have excluded eyes with type 3 CNVM and aneurysmal type 1 CNVM. We have added this into the Methods.

Reviewer #2: 5 The disease activity based on OCTA has no reason here. It cannot be evaluated in this way. The definition of active and inactive MNV based on the appearance of the vessels it is not supported. There are some MNV with large mature linear vessels and a dead tree appearance and subretinal fluid, does it mean that is not active? The appearance of the vessels is more related to the “age” of the lesion rather than the activity. I suggest to remove all the part related to the activity evaluation. Moreover, this is not a prospective study but a cross-sectional study. It is a bet to assess the activity of the lesion in this way and it has no reason to be presented.

Thank you for raising this pertinent point. Segmentation forms a very important role in delineating the network in AMD. Due to segmentation errors, there is an increased likelihood of missing small early networks. Additionally, the configuration and dimensions of the network are very dependent on the section been evaluated. Automated segmentation slabs may not truly reflect the widest area of network and / or its true configuration and /or if it is active based on criteria such as presence of tiny branching capillaries, with anastomoses, peripheral loops and arcades at the vessel termini and/or presence of a hypo-intense halo around the CNVM. These finer features of active network can be missed if the automated segmentation slab fails to detect them, and the network would be wrongly labelled as inactive. This can be overcome by manually readjusting the contours of the slabs to target vascular layers of special interest and truly define its characteristics. Since our aim was to compare between manual and automated segmentation, evaluation of disease activity on OCTA inevitably became an integral part of the study.

With regards to defining disease activity on OCTA, Coscas et al in their landmark paper on OCTA in AMD have concluded that “The presence of tiny branching vessels and a peripheral anastomotic arcade appears to predict the lesion activity with a good accuracy and the model based on four criteria enables optimal decisions regarding retreatment in eAMD.” [Coscas F, Lupidi M, Boulet JF, et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography in exudative age-related macular degeneration: a predictive model for treatment decisions. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2019;103:1342-1346.] The additional two OCTA criteria in their study which defined disease activity were “vascular loops” and “choriocapillaris hypointense”. Based on this landmark paper, we have defined AMD disease activity on OCTA as “presence of numerous tiny branching capillaries, with anastomoses, peripheral loops and arcades at the vessel termini and/or presence of a hypo-intense halo around the CNVM”. Darwish et al too have utilized these criteria for disease activity and classified AMD into 2 patterns, those requiring treatment (Pattern 1) and those not requiring treatment (Pattern 2) [Darwish A. OCT angiography for the evaluation of wet age related macular degeneration. EC Ophthalmol.2017;6:06-18.]. They too concluded that “OCT angiography may be clinically useful to evaluate the CNV activity and response to treatment as well as to differentiate the various types of CNV in wet AMD.”

Although we agree with the reviewer that defining disease activity on OCTA does have its own limitations, including a scenario where the patient may have subretinal fluid but mature vessels on OCTA. However, in such a scenario it is important to point out that “presence of SRF” is an “SD-OCT biomarker of disease activity” and intermingling it with “OCTA disease activity” was never the intention of our study. Our case definition of disease activity on both SD-OCT and OCTA is very precise and independent of each other. In fact, Lek JJ et al have described a new entity of nonexudative detachment of the neurosensory retina (NEDNR), in which there is presence of subclinical SRF in the absence of evidence of neovascularization or polyp [Lek JJ, Caruso E, Baglin EK, Sharangan P, Hodgson LAB, Harper CA, Rosenfeld PJ, Luu CD, Guymer RH. Interpretation of Subretinal Fluid Using OCT in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Aug;2(8):792-802.]. Thus, presence of SRF on OCT does not necessary imply presence of network or even disease activity. In addition, a small amount can very well be tolerated in nAMD as demonstrated by the FLUID study [Guymer RH, Markey CM, McAllister IL, Gillies MC, Hunyor AP, Arnold JJ; FLUID Investigators. Tolerating Subretinal Fluid in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated with Ranibizumab Using a Treat-and-Extend Regimen: FLUID Study 24-Month Results. Ophthalmology. 2019 May;126(5):723-734.]. Furthermore, they even suggested that “it is possible

that a subretinal space may exist long after active

exudation has ceased, with failure of the retina to adhere

firmly back to the retinal pigment epithelium through

interdigitations.”

In summary, our definition of disease activity and associated biomarkers on SD-OCT and OCTA was based upon the existing body of literature as elucidated above. We hope to get further insights into disease activity aspect on OCTA in nAMD once the results of the prospective “Defining Disease Activity in Neovascular AMD With Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (DANA)” study are published. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03909425?view=record ).

Reviewer #2: 6 Two graders are needed to evaluate the lesions using OCTA. And agreement between graders should be presented. Thank you for this observation. Although two graders had evaluated the lesion, this data was not provided in the original manuscript. Based on reviewer’s suggestion, we have calculated the intergrader agreement, which was very reliable (0.93). The same has been added in the Methods and the data has also been provided into the minimal anonymized dataset.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Decision Letter 1

Alfred S Lewin

17 Dec 2020

Need for manual segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PONE-D-20-31372R1

Dear Dr. Dabir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The track changes should have been removed from the submitted manuscript. Otherwise the comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for asking me to re-evaluate this interesting paper.

The issues raised in the previous submission have been favorably taken in account by the authors. The presentation of the data is more effective.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Alfred S Lewin

22 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-31372R1

Need for manual segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Dear Dr. Dabir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alfred S Lewin

Section Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES