ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Modeling Human Macular Cone Photoreceptor Spatial Distribution.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Vivo Cone Photoreceptor Topography of the Human Foveola.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Bisretinoids as a Source of Early Photoreceptor Pathology in Stargardt Disease.Ophthalmic research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the spatial distribution of human cone photoreceptors and examine cone density differences between the retinal meridians and quadrants. Method: Using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, the maculae were imaged in 17 eyes of 11 subjects with normal chorioretinal health aged 54 to 72 years. We measured cone density at 325 points within the central 10 degrees radius of the retina. Cone density spatial distributions along the primary retinal meridians and in four macular quadrants (superior-nasal, superior-temporal, inferior-temporal, and inferior-nasal) were analytically modeled using the polynomial function to assess the meridional and quadrantal difference. Results: The mean and 95% confidence interval for the prediction of cone density along the primary retinal meridians was modeled with a 7-degree one-variable polynomial (R2 = 0.9761, root mean squared error [RMSE] = 0.0585). In the 4 retinal quadrants, cone density distribution was described by a 2-variable polynomial with X degree 3 and Y degree 4 (R² = 0.9834, RMSE = 0.0377). The models suggest no statistically significant difference between medians and between quadrants. However, cone density difference at corresponding spatial locations in different areas can be up to 25.6%. The superior-nasal region has more areas with high cone density, followed by quadrants of inferior-nasal, inferior-temporal, and superior-temporal. Conclusions: Analytical modeling provides comprehensive knowledge of cone distribution across the entire macula. Although modeling analysis suggests no statistically significant difference between medians and between quadrants, the remarkable cone density discrepancies in certain regions should be accounted for in applications requiring sensitive detection of cone variation.
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.