ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of optical coherence tomography vs. fluorescein angiography-based macular neovascularization classifications in age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Novel semi-automated system for multi-dimensional analysis of macular neovascularization: quantitative biomarkers and rule-based morphological categorization across OCTA platforms.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare fluorescein angiography (FA)-based classification of macular neovascularisation (MNV) with optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based classification, as well as examine differences in retinal fluid among OCT MNV types. We analyzed baseline FA and OCT images from 704 eyes of neovascular AMD patients across two multicenter trials, with grading conducted at the Vienna Reading Center. Using a validated AI tool (RetInSight Fluid Monitor Version 2), we localized and quantified retinal fluid. Kappa coefficients for agreement between FA and OCT MNV types were 0.58 [0.52; 0.64] (type 1/occult), 0.46 [0.38; 0.55] (type 2/classic), and 0.53 [0.44; 0.62] (type 3/RAP). Significant differences in the volumes of intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) were noted among MNV types (p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences in IRF volumes across all lesion types except type 2 versus mixed type, in SRF between type 3 and other types, and in PED between type 2 and other lesions. In conclusion, there was moderate agreement between FA and OCT classifications, and notable differences in fluid distribution among OCT types, suggesting potential for AI-guided MNV recognition in clinical settings.
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.