Table 5

Endothelial cell density (ECD) of heterogeneous corneas (group 2, n=30) by automated analysis method: mono-image (each of the three images is analysed in isolation) or tri-image (the images are analysed simultaneously) for 50 and 300 cells, and comparison with manual count

Analysis methodNoMean ECD (SD, range) Cells/mm2Mean ECD discrepancy with manual count (cells/mm2, p)Pearson's r*
†Missing data: 300 cells uncountable due to adequate or medium image quality. ‡As with the group 1 corneas, the manual count underestimated ECD by a mean 7.1% (mean: 148 cells/mm2, range 66–229) in comparison with the automated analyses. The best correlations with manual analysis were obtained in tri-image mode with a 300 cells count (r = 0.94), then in tri-image 50 mode (r = 0.91). However, the correlations were weaker in mono-image mode and even poor in some modes (r = 0.54 and r = 0.59).
ECD = endothelial cell density, SD = standard deviation, Mono 50 = analysis of one image and 50 cells, Mono 300 = analysis of one image and 300 cells, tri-image 50 = analysis of three images simultaneously and 50 cells, tri-image 300 = analysis of three images simultaneously and 300 cells.
*all p values <0.001.
Mono 50 (image 1)302139 (581, 921–3134)66 (p=0.35)0.76
Mono 50 (image 2)302220 (455, 1464–3184)147 (p=0.064)0.54
Mono 50 (image 3)302273 (633, 937–3754)200 (p=0.007)0.82
Mono 300 (image 1)26†2265 (452, 1259–2923)155 (p=0.007)0.81
Mono 300 (image 2)28†2296 (514, 1555–3484)229 (p=0.009)0.59
Mono 300 (image 3)25†2241 (526, 933–3246)183 (p=0.012)0.77
Tri image 50302159 (442, 1410–2932)86 (p=0.019)0.91
Tri image 300302204 (412, 1545–2994)131 (p=0.001)0.94
Manual count2073 (420, 1248–3094)