Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25203681›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Technical factors influencing cone packing density estimates in adaptive optics flood illuminated retinal images.

Marco Lombardo, Sebastiano Serrao, Giuseppe Lombardo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Adaptive Optics Imaging of Inherited Retinal Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Investigating Biomarkers forInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Theoretical versus empirical measures of retinal magnification for scaling AOSLO images.Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Adaptive optics imaging of the human retina.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Photoreceptor-Based Biomarkers in AOSLO Retinal Imaging.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2017
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marco LombardoFondazione G.B. Bietti IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Sebastiano SerraoFondazione G.B. Bietti IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe LombardoCNR-IPCF Unit of Support Cosenza, Rende, Italy; Vision Engineering Italy srl, Rome, Italy.
Fondazione G.B. Bietti · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITVision Engineering (Italy) · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the influence of various technical factors on the variation of cone packing density estimates in adaptive optics flood illuminated retinal images.

methodsAdaptive optics images of the photoreceptor mosaic were obtained in fifteen healthy subjects. The cone density and Voronoi diagrams were assessed in sampling windows of 320×320 µm, 160×160 µm and 64×64 µm at 1.5 degree temporal and superior eccentricity from the preferred locus of fixation (PRL). The technical factors that have been analyzed included the sampling window size, the corrected retinal magnification factor (RMFcorr), the conversion from radial to linear distance from the PRL, the displacement between the PRL and foveal center and the manual checking of cone identification algorithm. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement between cone density estimated within the different sampling window conditions.

resultsThe cone density declined with decreasing sampling area and data between areas of different size showed low agreement. A high agreement was found between sampling areas of the same size when comparing density calculated with or without using individual RMFcorr. The agreement between cone density measured at radial and linear distances from the PRL and between data referred to the PRL or the foveal center was moderate. The percentage of Voronoi tiles with hexagonal packing arrangement was comparable between sampling areas of different size. The boundary effect, presence of any retinal vessels, and the manual selection of cones missed by the automated identification algorithm were identified as the factors influencing variation of cone packing arrangements in Voronoi diagrams.

conclusionsThe sampling window size is the main technical factor that influences variation of cone density. Clear identification of each cone in the image and the use of a large buffer zone are necessary to minimize factors influencing variation of Voronoi diagrams of the cone mosaic.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansLightingMaleMiddle AgedOphthalmoscopyOptics and PhotonicsRetinaRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsVisual FieldsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25203681
PMCPMC4159321
OpenAlexW2056976693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.