ArticleBiomedical optics express2022
Retinal magnification factors at the fixation locus derived from schematic eyes with four individualized surfaces.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a Retinal Phantom to Facilitate Adaptive Optics Scanning Light Ophthalmoscopy Imaging in a Multicenter Clinical Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Trial
- Automated montaging and contrast stretching of adaptive optics ophthalmoscope images.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- RHO-Associated Retinitis Pigmentosa: Genetics, Phenotype, Natural History, Functional Assays, and Animal Model - In Preparation for Clinical Trials.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Morphology of the normative human cone photoreceptor mosaic and a publicly available adaptive optics montage repository.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Biometry study of foveal isoplanatic patch variation for adaptive optics retinal imaging.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Characterizing Presumed Displaced Retinal Ganglion Cells in the Living Human Retina of Healthy and Glaucomatous Eyes.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Compact Linear Flow Phantom Model for Retinal Blood-Flow Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Retinal Changes From Hyperopia to Myopia: Not All Diopters Are Created Equal.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Multimodal in-vivo maps as a tool to characterize retinal structural biomarkers for progression in adult-onset Stargardt disease.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Intensity-based optoretinography reveals sub-clinical deficits in cone function in retinitis pigmentosa.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Introduction to the Feature Issue on Adaptive Optics for Biomedical Applications.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Author Response: Radial and Tangential Retinal Magnifications as Functions of Visual Field Angle Across Spherical, Oblate, and Prolate Retinal Profiles.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Extracting spacing-derived estimates of rod density in healthy retinae.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Coarse-scale optoretinography (CoORG) with extended field-of-view for normative characterization.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Retinal magnification factors (RMFs) allow the conversion of angles to lengths in retinal images. In this work, we propose paraxial and non-paraxial RMF calculation methods that incorporate the individual topography and separation of the anterior and posterior surfaces of the cornea and crystalline lens, assuming homogeneous ocular media. Across 34 eyes, the two RMF methods differ by 0.1% on average, due to surface tilt, decenter, and lack of rotational symmetry in the non-paraxial modeling, which results in up to 2.2% RMF variation with retinal meridian. Differences with widely used individualized RMF calculation methods are smallest for eyes with ∼24 mm axial length, and as large as 7.5% in a 29.7 mm long eye (15D myope). To better model the capture of retinal images, we propose the tracing of chief rays, instead of the scaling of posterior nodal or principal distances often used in RMF definitions. We also report that RMF scale change is approximately proportional to both refractive error and axial separation between the ophthalmoscope's exit pupil and the eye's entrance pupil, resulting in RMF changes as large as 13% for a 1cm displacement in a 15D myopic eye. Our biometry data shows weak correlation and statistical significance between surface radii and refractive error, as well as axial length, whether considering all eyes in the study, or just the high myopes, defined as those with refractive error sphere equivalent ≤ -4D. In contrast, vitreous thicknesses show a strong correlation (
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.