ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2016
Predicting Accommodative Response Using Paraxial Schematic Eye Models.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining murine eye length asymmetry with spectral domain optical coherence tomography.Experimental eye research · 2025Article
- Comparison of the accommodative amplitude measured with and without the use of a specialised accommodative rule in children.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Estimation of the full shape of the crystalline lensBiomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Article
- Morphological changes of human crystalline lens in myopia.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrevious ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) studies showed that accommodative optical response (AOR) can be predicted from accommodative biometric changes in a young and a pre-presbyopic population from linear relationships between accommodative optical and biometric changes, with a standard deviation of less than 0.55D. Here, paraxial schematic eyes (SE) were constructed from measured accommodative ocular biometry parameters to see if predictions are improved.
methodsMeasured ocular biometry (OCT, A-scan, and UBM) parameters from 24 young and 24 pre-presbyopic subjects were used to construct paraxial SEs for each individual subject (individual SEs) for three different lens equivalent refractive index methods. Refraction and AOR calculated from the individual SEs were compared with Grand Seiko (GS) autorefractor measured refraction and AOR. Refraction and AOR were also calculated from individual SEs constructed using the average population accommodative change in UBM measured parameters (average SEs).
resultsSchematic eye calculated and GS measured AOR were linearly related (young subjects: slope = 0.77, r = 0.86; pre-presbyopic subjects: slope = 0.64, r = 0.55). The mean difference in AOR (GS - individual SEs) for the young subjects was -0.27D and for the pre-presbyopic subjects was 0.33D. For individual SEs, the mean ± SD of the absolute differences in AOR between the GS and SEs was 0.50 ± 0.39D for the young subjects and 0.50 ± 0.37D for the pre-presbyopic subjects. For average SEs, the mean ± SD of the absolute differences in AOR between the GS and the SEs was 0.77 ± 0.88D for the young subjects and 0.51 ± 0.49D for the pre-presbyopic subjects.
conclusionsIndividual paraxial SEs predict AOR, on average, with a standard deviation of 0.50D in young and pre-presbyopic subject populations. Although this prediction is only marginally better than from individual linear regressions, it does consider all the ocular biometric parameters.
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.