ArticleExperimental eye research2011
Accuracy and resolution of in vitro imaging based porcine lens volumetric measurements.
Article in Experimental eye research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study on Factors Affecting Toric Intraocular Lens Rotation Using Intraoperative OCT-Factors Influencing IOL Deployment and Proximity to Posterior Capsule After Insertion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Measurement of Crystalline Lens Volume During Accommodation in a Lens Stretcher.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is considerable interest in determining lens volume in the living eye. Lens volume is of interest to understand accommodative changes in the lens and to size accommodative IOLs (A-IOLs) to fit the capsular bag. Some studies have suggested lens volume change during accommodation. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the only method available to determine lens volume in vivo. MRI is, by its nature, relatively low in temporal and spatial resolution. Therefore analysis often requires determining lens volume from single image slices with relatively low resolution on which only simple image analysis methods can be used and without repeated measures. In this study, 7 T MRI scans encompassing the full lens volume were performed on 19 enucleated pig eyes. The eyes were then dissected to isolate and photograph the lens in profile and the lens volumes were measured empirically using a fluid displacement method. Lens volumes were calculated from two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) MR and 2D photographic profile images of the isolated lenses using several different analysis methods. Image based and actual measured lens volumes were compared. The average image-based volume of all lenses varied from the average measured volume of all lenses by 0.6%-6.4% depending on the image analysis method. Image analysis methods that use gradient based edge detection showed higher precision with actual volumes (r(2): 0.957-0.990), while threshold based segmentation had poorer correlations (r(2): 0.759-0.828). The root-mean-square (RMS) difference between image analysis based volumes and fluid displacement measured volumes ranged from 8.51 μl to 25.79 μl. This provides an estimate of the error of previously published methods used to calculate lens volume. Immobilized, enucleated porcine eyes permit improved MR image resolution relative to living eyes and therefore improved image analysis methods to calculate lens volume. The results show that some of the accommodative changes in lens volume reported in the literature are likely below the resolution limits of imaging methods used. MRI, even with detailed image analysis methods used here, is unlikely to achieve the resolution required to accurately size an A-IOL to the capsular bag.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.