Table 5 A comparison between previously suggested segmentation algorithms and the Livelayer software.
Algorithm’s name | Simplicity and availability | Processing time | Handling errors | Handling huge data | Extra notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Almost simple Freely available | Automatic (less than 10 s) | Including an error correction functionality—editing a boundary on one slice considerably affects other boundaries and slices | Yes | An integrated software package—Accepting various file formats—not very good at low-quality, vessel containing OCTs | |
OCTMarker20 | Almost simple Freely available | Automatic (less than 5 s) | Including an error correction functionality | Yes | An integrated software package—capable of segmenting very few retinal layers (approximately 2 or 3 layers) |
EdgeSelect16 | Not available | Semi-automatic Not discussed | – | – | Not an integrated software package—only 4 boundaries segmented |
SAMIRIX20 | Not available | Semi-automatic Not discussed | – | – | An integrated software package—accepting only one file format—capable of segmenting 9 retinal boundaries |
Livelayer (our proposed) | Quite simple Freely available | Semi-automatic (roughly 60 s) | Including an error correction functionality | Yes | An integrated software package—accepting 3 file formats—capable of segmenting 9 retinal boundaries—Exact in low-quality OCTs |