ArticleCurrent eye research2024
Peak Cone Density Predicted from Outer Segment Length Measured on Optical Coherence Tomography.
Article in Current eye research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In Vivo Cone Photoreceptor Topography of the Human Foveola.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare peak cone density predicted from outer segment length measured on optical coherence tomography with direct measures of peak cone density from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy.
methodsData from 42 healthy participants with direct peak cone density measures and optical coherence tomography line scans available were used in this study. Longitudinal reflectivity profiles were analyzed using two methods of identifying the boundaries of the ellipsoid and interdigitation zones to estimate maximum outer segment length: peak-to-peak and the slope method. These maximum outer segment length values were then used to predict peak cone density using a previously described geometrical model. A comparison between predicted and direct peak cone density measures was then performed.
resultsThe mean bias between observers for estimating maximum outer segment length across methods was less than 2 µm. Cone density predicted from the peak-to-peak method against direct cone density measures showed a mean bias of 6,812 cones/mm
conclusionPredicted foveal cone density derived from peak-to-peak outer segment length measurements using commercial optical coherence tomography show modest agreement with direct measures of peak cone density from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy. The methods used here are imperfect predictors of cone density, however, further exploration of this relationship could reveal a clinically relevant marker of cone structure.
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.