ArticleActa ophthalmologica2018
Repeatability of the macular pigment spatial profile: A comparison of objective versus subjective classification.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeClassification of macular pigment (MP) spatial profile phenotypes varies and is often based on subjective visualisation. We investigated repeatability of MP optical density (MPOD) comparing an objective versus subjective profiling system.
methodsThe coefficient of repeatability (CoR) was calculated for point MPOD values (0-3.8°) obtained by dual-wavelength fundus autofluorescence (FAF) from two scans obtained in a single visit of 40 healthy individuals (39 ± 9 years). For each individual's dataset, the MP profile was classified as exponential, ring-like or central dip using an objective method (based on deviations away from an exponential fit), as well as by subjective visual profiling. Existing FAF images of 88 monozygotic (MZ) and 69 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs were reanalysed using the objective profiling method and concordance and heritability of ring-like profiles determined.
resultsThe CoR was 0.23 at 0° and 0.06 at 0.8°. Agreement of objective profiling between scans was excellent (κ = 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; p < 0.0005). Subjective profiling showed moderate agreement between scans (κ = 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; p < 0.0005). Agreement between objective and subjective classification was low (κ = 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; p = 0.02). Concordance for the ring-like profile using objective profiling was 0.74 for MZ compared to 0.36 for DZ twins. Heritability was calculated as 81.5% (95% confidence interval 61.1-93.1%).
conclusionCompared to visual assessment, objective MP profiling is a more reliable method and should be considered in future observational and interventional studies. In addition, MP profile phenotypes showed high heritability.
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.