ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Intervisit Reproducibility of Foveal Cone Density Metrics.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To assess longitudinal reproducibility of metrics of foveal density (peak cone density [PCD], cone density centroid [CDC], and 80th percentile centroid area) in participants with normal vision. Methods: Participants (n = 19; five male and 14 female) were imaged at two time points (average interval of 3.2 years) using an adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope (AOSLO). Foveally centered regions of interest (ROIs) were extracted from AOSLO montages. Cone coordinate matrices were semiautomatically derived for each ROI, and cone mosaic metrics were calculated. Results: On average, there were no significant changes in cone mosaic metrics between visits. The average ± SD PCD was 187,000 ± 20,000 cones/mm2 and 189,000 ± 21,700 cones/mm2 for visits 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.52). The average ± SD density at the CDC was 183,000 ± 19,000 cones/mm2 and 184,000 ± 20,800 cones/mm2 for visits 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.78). The average ± SD 80th percentile isodensity contour area was 15,400 ± 1800 µm2 and 15,600 ± 1910 µm2 for visits 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.57). Conclusions: Foveal cone mosaic density metrics were highly reproducible in the cohort examined here, although further study is required in more diverse populations. Translational Relevance: Determination of the normative longitudinal changes in foveal cone topography is key for evaluating longitudinal measures of foveal cone topography in patients with progressive retinal dystrophies.
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.