ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2024
Insights into atypical segmental layer thicknesses and phase retardation in thick corneas using ultrahigh-resolution polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 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.
- Advancing subclinical keratoconus detection using polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography and artificial intelligence.Biophotonics discovery · 2026Article
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
backgroundAccurately assessing corneal structural status is challenging when thickness deviates from the average. Polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography (PS-OCT) measures tissue-specific polarization changes, providing additional contrast for accurate segmentations and aids in phase retardation (PR) measurements. Previous studies have shown PR's effectiveness in identifying sub-clinical keratoconus (KC) in asymmetric cases. Thus, this study aims to assess PR distribution in thick corneas with and without KC.
methodsIn this retrospective and cross-sectional study, 45 thick corneas from 30 Asian-Indian subjects, categorized into healthy (n = 26) and KC (n = 19) groups were analyzed. All eyes underwent standard clinical evaluations, tomographic assessments, and corneal biomechanics measurements. PR and individual layer thicknesses were measured using custom-designed ultrahigh-resolution PS-OCT. PR en-face maps were generated. Individual layer thicknesses and PR analysis was conducted across multiple zones, extending up to 8-10 mm in diameter. All eyes in the study had not undergone interventions, received topical medications, or had previous corneal disease history.
resultsSignificant differences were found in spherical and cylindrical powers, keratometry, pachymetry, and biomechanical indices (all P < 0.01). Thickness profiles from PS-OCT showed significant differences in the 4-8 mm zones only. Bowman's layer thickness significantly differed only in the central 2 mm zone (P = 0.02). The median PR values showed marginal differences in the central 2 mm zone (P = 0.0565). Additionally, there were significant differences observed in the 2-4 mm and 4-6 mm zones (P = 0.0274 and P = 0.0456, respectively). KC eyes exhibited an atypical PR distribution and corneal thinning, while normal eyes maintained a uniform Bowman's layer thickness and PR maps with larger areas of higher PR.
conclusionThe study revealed distinctive PR distribution in thick corneas among healthy and KC groups. Using an ultrahigh-resolution PS-OCT the significance of Bowman's layer thickness in these groups was also emphasized. The study offered potential improvements in clinical diagnostics by enhancing our understanding of corneal structure and its altered function.
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.