ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2018
The Reliability of Cone Density Measurements in the Presence of Rods.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative Retinal Vascular Imaging Using Flood-Illuminated Adaptive Optics in Eyes with Lens Opacities.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Telecentric model eye for correction of image distortion in adaptive optics ophthalmoscopes.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Review
- Retinal Sensitivity in Comparison to Cone Density in Choroideremia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Morphology of the normative human cone photoreceptor mosaic and a publicly available adaptive optics montage repository.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Longitudinal Imaging of the Foveal Cone Mosaic in CNGA3-Associated Achromatopsia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Cone Photoreceptor Morphology in Choroideremia Assessed Using Non-Confocal Split-Detection Adaptive Optics Scanning Light Ophthalmoscopy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Twenty-five years of clinical applications using adaptive optics ophthalmoscopy [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2023Review
- Extracting spacing-derived estimates of rod density in healthy retinae.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Intergrader agreement of foveal cone topography measured using adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Comparison of Cone Mosaic Metrics From Images Acquired With the SPECTRALIS High Magnification Module and Adaptive Optics Scanning Light Ophthalmoscopy.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- The Development and Clinical Application of Innovative Optical Ophthalmic Imaging Techniques.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- ENHANCED S-CONE SYNDROME: VISUAL FUNCTION, CROSS-SECTIONAL IMAGING, AND CELLULAR STRUCTURE WITH ADAPTIVE OPTICS OPHTHALMOSCOPY.Retinal cases & brief reports · 2021Article
- Promises and pitfalls of evaluating photoreceptor-based retinal disease with adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO).Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- Emulated retinal image capture (ERICA) to test, train and validate processing of retinal images.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cone Identification in Choroideremia: Repeatability, Reliability, and Automation Through Use of a Convolutional Neural Network.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- SPATIALLY INFORMED CNN FOR AUTOMATED CONE DETECTION IN ADAPTIVE OPTICS RETINAL IMAGES.Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging · 2020Article
- Automatic longitudinal montaging of adaptive optics retinal images using constellation matching.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- A 2-Year Longitudinal Study of Normal Cone Photoreceptor Density.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecent advances in adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) have enabled visualization of cone inner segments through nonconfocal split-detection, in addition to rod and cone outer segments revealed by confocal reflectance. Here, we examined the interobserver reliability of cone density measurements in both AOSLO imaging modalities.
methodsFive normal subjects (nine eyes) were imaged along the horizontal and vertical meridians using a custom AOSLO with confocal and nonconfocal split-detection modalities. The resulting images were montaged using a previously described semiautomatic algorithm. Regions of interest (ROIs) were selected from the confocal montage at 190 μm, and from split-detection and confocal montages at 900 and 1800 μm from the fovea. Four observers (three experts, one naïve) manually identified cone locations in each ROI, and these locations were used to calculate bound densities. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Dice's coefficients were calculated to assess interobserver agreement.
resultsInterobserver agreement was high in cone-only images (confocal 190 μm: 0.85; split-detection 900 μm: 0.91; split-detection 1800 μm: 0.89), moderate in confocal images at 900 μm (0.68), and poor in confocal images at 1800 μm (0.24). Excluding the naïve observer data substantially increased agreement within confocal images (190 μm: 0.99; 900 μm: 0.80; 1800 μm: 0.68).
conclusionsInterobserver measurements of cone density are more reliable in rod-free retinal images. Moreover, when using manual cell identification, it is essential that observers are trained, particularly for confocal AOSLO images. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study underscores the need for additional reliability studies in eyes containing pathology where identifying cones can be substantially more difficult.
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.