ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Assessing the Sensitivity of OCT-A Retinal Vasculature Metrics.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Treadmill Exercise on Retinal Vascular Morphology, Function, and Circulating Immune Factors in a Mouse Model of Retinal Degeneration.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Optical coherence tomography retinal imaging: narrative review of technological advancements and clinical applications.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Intersession repeatability of visual function and OCTA metrics in eyes with diabetic macular ischaemia.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Preferential Sites of Retinal Capillary Occlusion in Sickle Cell Disease.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Estimation of foveal avascular zone area from a B-scan OCT image using machine learning algorithms.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the sensitivity of quantitative metrics of the retinal vasculature derived from optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) images. Methods: Full retinal vascular slab OCT-A images were obtained from 94 healthy participants. Capillary loss, at 1% increments up to 50%, was simulated by randomly removing capillary segments (1000 iterations of randomized loss for each participant at each percent loss). Thirteen quantitative metrics were calculated for each image: foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area, vessel density, vessel complexity index (VCI), vessel perimeter index (VPI), fractal dimension (FD), and parafoveal intercapillary area (PICA) measurements with and without the FAZ (mean PICA, summed PICA, PICA regularity, and PICA standard deviation [PICA SD]). The sensitivity of each metric was calculated as the percent loss at which 80% of the iterations for a participant fell outside of two standard deviations from the sample's normative mean. Results: The most used OCT-A metrics, FAZ area and vessel density, were not significantly different from normative values until 27.69% and 16.00% capillary loss, respectively. Across the remaining metrics, metric sensitivity ranged from 6.37% (PICA SD without FAZ) to 39.78% (Summed PICA without FAZ). Conclusions: The sensitivity of vasculature metrics for detecting random capillary loss varies substantially. Further efforts simulating different patterns of capillary loss are needed for comparison. Additionally, mapping the repeatability of metrics over time in a normal population is needed to further define metric sensitivity. Translational Relevance: Quantitative metrics vary in their ability to detect vascular abnormalities in OCT-A images. Metric choice in screening studies will need to balance expected capillary abnormalities and the quality of the OCT-A images being used.
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.