Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Ophthalmol. 2021 Jun 6;231:179–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.06.004

FIGURE 2. Agreement between the algorithm and humans is high in the majority of lesions.

FIGURE 2.

Each row demonstrates a CC lesion boundary identified by each grader. Lesion area is shown in mm2 on each image. The overlays of the human graders (HGs) to the algorithm (AG) are shown in the last panel on the right: HG1 in green, HG2 in red, and the AG in blue. White indicates where the boundaries drawn by all three graders overlap. (A) Eye 4, from a patient with birdshot chorioretinopathy. (B) Eye 5, from a patient with presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome. (C) Eye 8, from a patient with relentless placoid chorioretinopathy. D) Eye 12, from a patient with serpiginous-like choroiditis. (E) Eye 14, from a patient with birdshot chorioretinopathy. Panels (F-H) display the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals for the lesion areas identified on all 20 eyes by grader pairs as indicated: (F) HG1 vs. HG2; (G) HG1 vs. AG; (H) HG2 vs. AG.