Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35446344›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2022

Impact of Reference Center Choice on Adaptive Optics Imaging Cone Mosaic Analysis.

Danial Roshandel, Danuta M Sampson, David A Mackey, Fred K Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Danial RoshandelCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Danuta M SampsonSurrey Biophotonics, Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing and School of Biosciences and Medicine, The University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
David A MackeyCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Fred K ChenCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
University of Western Australia · AUCentre for Eye Research Australia · AUUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Foveal center marking is a key step in retinal image analysis. We investigated the discordance between the adaptive optics (AO) montage center (AMC) and the foveal pit center (FPC) and its implications for cone mosaic analysis using a commercial flood-illumination AO camera. Methods: Thirty eyes of 30 individuals (including 15 healthy and 15 patients with rod-cone dystrophy) were included. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography was used to determine the FPC, and flood-illumination AO imaging was performed with overlapping image frames to create an AO montage. The AMC was determined by averaging the (0,0) coordinates in the four paracentral overlapping AO image frames. Cone mosaic measurements at various retinal eccentricities were compared between corresponding retinal loci relative to the AMC or FPC. Results: AMCs were located temporally to the FPCs in 14 of 15 eyes in both groups. The average AMC-FPC discordance was 0.85° among healthy controls and 0.33° among patients with rod-cone dystrophy (P < 0.05). The distance of the AMC from the FPC was a significant determinant of the cone density (β estimate = 218 cells/deg2/deg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 107-330; P < 0.001) and inter-cone distance (β estimate = 0.28 arcmin/deg; 95% CI, 0.15-0.40; P < 0.001), after adjustment for age, sex, axial length, spherical equivalent, eccentricity, and disease status. Conclusions: There is a marked mismatch between the AMC and FPC in healthy eyes that may be modified by disease process such as rod-cone dystrophy. We recommend users of AO imaging systems carefully align the AO montage with a foveal anatomical landmark, such as the FPC, to ensure precise and reproducible localization of the eccentricities and regions of interest for cone mosaic analysis.

Indexed as

Cone-Rod DystrophiesFovea CentralisHumansOphthalmoscopyRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID35446344
PMCPMC9034713
OpenAlexW4224284991

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.