Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27507665›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Gradient moduli lens models: how material properties and application of forces can affect deformation and distributions of stress.

Kehao Wang, Demetrios Venetsanos, Jian Wang, Barbara K Pierscionek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Kehao WangFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Penrhyn Road, KT1 2EE, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK.
Demetrios VenetsanosFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Penrhyn Road, KT1 2EE, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK.
Jian WangFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Penrhyn Road, KT1 2EE, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK.
Barbara K PierscionekFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Penrhyn Road, KT1 2EE, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human lens provides one-third of the ocular focussing power and is responsible for altering focus over a range of distances. This ability, termed accommodation, defines the process by which the lens alters shape to increase or decrease ocular refractive power; this is mediated by the ciliary muscle through the zonule. This ability decreases with age such that around the sixth decade of life it is lost rendering the eye unable to focus on near objects. There are two opponent theories that provide an explanation for the mechanism of accommodation; definitive support for either of these requires investigation. This work aims to elucidate how material properties can affect accommodation using Finite Element models based on interferometric measurements of refractive index. Gradients of moduli are created in three models from representative lenses, aged 16, 35 and 48 years. Different forms of zonular attachments are studied to determine which may most closely mimic the physiological form by comparing stress and displacement fields with simulated shape changes to accommodation in living lenses. The results indicate that for models to mimic accommodation in living eyes, the anterior and posterior parts of the zonule need independent force directions. Choice of material properties affects which theory of accommodation is supported.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalFinite Element AnalysisHumansLens, Crystalline

Identifiers

PMID27507665
PMCPMC4979009

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.