Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38881602›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Label-Free Imaging of Inflammation at the Level of Single Cells in the Living Human Eye.

Yuhua Rui, Min Zhang, Daniel M W Lee, Valerie C Snyder, Rashmi Raghuraman, Elena Gofas-Salas, Pedro Mecê, Sanya Yadav, Pavan Tiruveedhula, Kate Grieve and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Brain communications · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors.

Yuhua RuiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Min ZhangDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Daniel M W LeeDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Valerie C SnyderDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Rashmi RaghuramanDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Elena Gofas-SalasSorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France.
Pedro MecêInstitut Langevin, ESPCI Paris, Université PSL, CNRS, Paris, France.
Sanya YadavDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Pavan TiruveedhulaSchool of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Kate GrieveSorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France.
José-Alain SahelDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Marie-Hélène ErreraDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ethan A RossiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

Distinguishing normal aging from age-related macular degeneration at the level of single cells in the living human eyeR01EY030517 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ROSSI, ETHAN A · 2020 to 2024
$2.4M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY030517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Putative microglia were recently detected using adaptive optics ophthalmoscopy in healthy eyes. Here we evaluate the use of nonconfocal adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) for quantifying the morphology and motility of presumed microglia and other immune cells in eyes with retinal inflammation from uveitis and healthy eyes. Design: Observational exploratory study. Participants: Twelve participants were imaged, including 8 healthy participants and 4 posterior uveitis patients recruited from the clinic of 1 of the authors (M.H.E.). Methods: The Pittsburgh AOSLO imaging system was used with a custom-designed 7-fiber optical fiber bundle for simultaneous confocal and nonconfocal multioffset detection. The inner retina was imaged at several locations at multiple timepoints in healthy participants and uveitis patients to generate time-lapse images. Main Outcome Measures: Microglia and macrophages were manually segmented from nonconfocal AOSLO images, and their morphological characteristics quantified (including soma size, diameter, and circularity). Cell soma motion was quantified across time for periods of up to 30 minutes and their speeds were calculated by measuring their displacement over time. Results: A spectrum of cell morphologies was detected in healthy eyes from circular amoeboid cells to elongated cells with visible processes, resembling activated and ramified microglia, respectively. Average soma diameter was 16.1 ± 0.9 μm. Cell movement was slow in healthy eyes (0.02 μm/sec on average), but macrophage-like cells moved rapidly in some uveitis patients (up to 3 μm/sec). In an eye with infectious uveitis, many macrophage-like cells were detected; during treatment their quantity and motility decreased as vision improved. Conclusions: In vivo adaptive optics ophthalmoscopy offers promise as a potentially powerful tool for detecting and monitoring inflammation and response to treatment at a cellular level in the living eye. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Adaptive opticsInflammationMacrophageRetinal microgliaUveitis

Identifiers

PMID38881602
PMCPMC11179426

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.