ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Correction Method for Optical Scaling of Fundoscopy Images: Development, Validation, and First Implementation.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. 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.
- Associations Between Choroidal Structural Parameters and Cone Photoreceptors in Young High Myopia.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Fundus Autofluorescence as a Sensitive Biomarker of Disease Progression in Bietti Crystalline Dystrophy.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Reproducibility in the identification of retinal positions on serial fundus photographs: Theory and limitations.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Patient-specific mapping of fundus photographs to three-dimensional ocular imaging.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of OPTOS wide-field fundus image projections for radiotherapy planning of uveal melanoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although fundus photography is extensively used in ophthalmology, refraction prevents accurate distance measurement on fundus images, as the resulting scaling differs between subjects due to varying ocular anatomy. We propose a PARaxial Optical fundus Scaling (PAROS) method to correct for this variation using commonly available clinical data. Methods: The complete optics of the eye and fundus camera were modeled using ray transfer matrix formalism to obtain fundus image magnification. The subject's ocular geometry was personalized using biometry, spherical equivalent of refraction (RSE), keratometry, and/or corneal topography data. The PAROS method was validated using 41 different eye phantoms and subsequently evaluated in 44 healthy phakic subjects (of whom 11 had phakic intraocular lenses [pIOLs]), 29 pseudophakic subjects, and 21 patients with uveal melanoma. Results: Validation of the PAROS method showed small differences between model and actual image magnification (maximum 3.3%). Relative to the average eye, large differences in fundus magnification were observed, ranging from 0.79 to 1.48. Magnification was strongly inversely related to RSE (R2 = 0.67). In phakic subjects, magnification was directly proportional to axial length (R2 = 0.34). The inverse relation was seen in pIOL (R2 = 0.79) and pseudophakic (R2 = 0.12) subjects. RSE was a strong contributor to magnification differences (1%-83%). As this effect is not considered in the commonly used Bennett-Littmann method, statistically significant differences up to 40% (mean absolute 9%) were observed compared to the PAROS method (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The significant differences in fundus image scaling observed among subjects can be accurately accounted for with the PAROS method, enabling more accurate quantitative assessment of fundus photography.
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.