Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29604280›Full record

ArticleExperimental eye research2018

Effect of a contact lens on mouse retinal in vivo imaging: Effective focal length changes and monochromatic aberrations.

Pengfei Zhang, Jacopo Mocci, Daniel J Wahl, Ratheesh Kumar Meleppat, Suman K Manna, Martino Quintavalla, Riccardo Muradore, Marinko V Sarunic, Stefano Bonora, Edward N Pugh and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental eye research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Neurophotonics · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Effects of intravitreal injection of human CD34Experimental eye research · 2020
    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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Pengfei ZhangUC Davis Eye-Pod Small Animal Ocular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis, 4320 Tupper Hall, Davis, CA 95616, United States.
Jacopo MocciCNR-Institute for Photonics and Nanotechnology, Via Trasea 7, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Daniel J WahlEngineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Ratheesh Kumar MeleppatUC Davis Eye-Pod Small Animal Ocular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis, 4320 Tupper Hall, Davis, CA 95616, United States.
Suman K MannaUC Davis Eye-Pod Small Animal Ocular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis, 4320 Tupper Hall, Davis, CA 95616, United States.
Martino QuintavallaCNR-Institute for Photonics and Nanotechnology, Via Trasea 7, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Riccardo MuradoreDepartment of Computer Science, University of Verona, Italy.
Marinko V SarunicEngineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Stefano BonoraCNR-Institute for Photonics and Nanotechnology, Via Trasea 7, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Edward N PughUC Davis Eye-Pod Small Animal Ocular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis, 4320 Tupper Hall, Davis, CA 95616, United States; UC Davis Eye Center, Dept. of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis, 4860 Y Street, Suite 2400, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States.
Robert J ZawadzkiUC Davis Eye-Pod Small Animal Ocular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis, 4320 Tupper Hall, Davis, CA 95616, United States; UC Davis Eye Center, Dept. of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis, 4860 Y Street, Suite 2400, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States. Electronic address: rjzawadzki@ucdavis.edu.
University of California, Davis · USCenter for Biomolecular Nanotechnologies · ITSimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

VISION RESEARCH CORE GRANTP30EY012576 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI LISA M OAKES · 1999 to 2026
$18.9M
MECHANISMS OF VISUAL TRANSDUCTIONR01EY002660 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI PUGH, EDWARD N · 1985 to 2021
$11.4M
Theranostics of Photoreceptor-RPE-Choroid Neurovascular Unit in Mouse Models of Eye DiseasesR01EY026556 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Robert J Zawadzki · 2017 to 2026
$4.1M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY012576NEI NIH HHS R01 EY002660NEI NIH HHS R01 EY026556
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For in vivo mouse retinal imaging, especially with Adaptive Optics instruments, application of a contact lens is desirable, as it allows maintenance of cornea hydration and helps to prevent cataract formation during lengthy imaging sessions. However, since the refractive elements of the eye (cornea and lens) serve as the objective for most in vivo retinal imaging systems, the use of a contact lens, even with 0 Dpt. refractive power, can alter the system's optical properties. In this investigation we examined the effective focal length change and the aberrations that arise from use of a contact lens. First, focal length changes were simulated with a Zemax mouse eye model. Then ocular aberrations with and without a 0 Dpt. contact lens were measured with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (SHWS) in a customized AO-SLO system. Total RMS wavefront errors were measured for two groups of mice (14-month, and 2.5-month-old), decomposed into 66 Zernike aberration terms, and compared. These data revealed that vertical coma and spherical aberrations were increased with use of a contact lens in our system. Based on the ocular wavefront data we evaluated the effect of the contact lens on the imaging system performance as a function of the pupil size. Both RMS error and Strehl ratios were quantified for the two groups of mice, with and without contact lenses, and for different input beam sizes. These results provide information for determining optimum pupil size for retinal imaging without adaptive optics, and raise critical issues for design of mouse optical imaging systems that incorporate contact lenses.

Indexed as

Contact LensesAberrometryAnimalsCorneaCorneal Wavefront AberrationMiceMice, Inbred C57BLOphthalmoscopesPupilRefraction, OcularRetinaAdaptive opticsContact lensEffective focal lengthMouse eye aberrationScanning laser ophthalmoscope

Identifiers

PMID29604280
PMCPMC6417837
OpenAlexW2794844041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.