Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40591695›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Central optical power of the isolated human lens without zonular tension.

Ronald A Schachar, Ira H Schachar, Shubham Kumar, Farhad Kamangar, Boyd Hunter, Barbara K Pierscionek, Pamela C Cosman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Ronald A SchacharSchachar LLC, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2802-4031
Ira H SchacharNorth Bay Vitreoretinal Consultants, Santa Rosa, California, United States of America.
Shubham KumarDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States of America.
Farhad KamangarDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
Boyd HunterPraxis Optics, Elmira, New York, United States of America.
Barbara K PierscionekFaculty of Health, Medicine and Social Care, Medical Technology Research Centre Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom.
Pamela C CosmanDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to focus at near is achieved by dynamic changes in the shape of the lens of the eye. The Helmholtz hypothesis of accommodation proposes that, at distance gaze, all of the lenticular supporting zonules are at maximal tension. To bring a near object into focus, this tension is reduced by action of the ciliary muscle. The resultant release of tension allows the elastic lens capsule to mold the lens into a more rounded shape, increasing both its central thickness and central optical power (COP). Based upon Helmholtz's hypothesis, complete removal of these zonules should result in a rounded shaped lens of maximal COP. Schachar has offered an alternative mechanism of accommodation based upon the distinct actions of the three different groups of lenticular zonules. Schachar believes that for distant objects, all the zonules are under the minimum tension required to maintain lens stability; however, during lenticular accommodation, equatorial zonular tension increases while, simultaneously, the anterior and posterior zonular tension decreases. The selective increase in equatorial zonular tension results from the unique orientation of the different ciliary muscle fiber groups. With this increase in equatorial zonular tension, the peripheral lens surfaces flatten, central surfaces steepen and central lens thickness and COP increase. Schachar's hypothesis would anticipate that with zonular removal, the COP of the isolated lens would be minimal and diametrically opposite to the high lens COP expected with the Helmholtz hypothesis. In order to determine the COP of the isolated human lens, we obtained, through the kindness of the authors of an independent research study, the x-y coordinates of the central sagittal lens profiles of 10 freshly isolated human lenses (donors aged 20-30 years). These coordinate data were then mathematically utilized by fitting them into Chien, Forbes, Fourier, and elliptical equations. Additionally, the coordinate data was smoothed and fit to third-degree polynomials (S4W 3rd Poly). Independent of which of these equations was employed, within central optical zone diameters of [Formula: see text] 3 mm, the COP was found to be minimal. Since the S4W 3rd Poly provided the best fit, it was used to represent lens surfaces in optically modeled eyes. In all modeled eyes, Zernike spherical aberration (SA) coefficients were positive. These findings are consistent with in vivo measurements of SA obtained from human eyes while viewing distant visual objects. Having thus demonstrated that freshly removed human lenses, free of zonular tension, have their least COP, it is likely that this condition mimics the physiologic status of the human lens in the eye while attending to the most distant visual objects. In an independent, companion paper, we observed, using interferometric measurements of surface radius of curvatures of 12 fresh, isolated human lenses, obtained from donors aged 20-30 years, that the minimal COP was also associated with the unaccommodated state in vivo.

Indexed as

Accommodation, OcularLens, CrystallineAdultHumans

Identifiers

PMID40591695
PMCPMC12212553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.