ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Standardized conversion model for retinal thickness measurements between spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography based on machine learning.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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.
- Comparative analysis of RNFL and optic disc measurements across three OCT devices in healthy eyes: Implications for device standardization and clinical practice.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To conduct a systematic comparative analysis of macular retinal thickness, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness measurements between spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) in healthy individuals, while establishing standardized cross-platform conversion algorithms through machine learning methodologies. Methods: In this cross-sectional investigation, 48 healthy adults (96 eyes) underwent macular retinal thickness assessment (ETDRS grid sectors), RNFL analysis (quadrant sectors), and GCIPL evaluation (six-sector annular divisions) using both SD-OCT (Cirrus HD-OCT 5000) and SS-OCT (Triton DRI-OCT). Inter-device measurement differences were evaluated through paired t-tests. Agreement metrics were quantified via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis. Four predictive models-linear regression (LR), LASSO regression, random forest regression (RF), and support vector regression (SVR)-were developed to estimate Triton DRI-OCT measurements from Cirrus HD-OCT 5000 outputs. Model efficacy was assessed using coefficient of determination (R Results: Statistically significant inter-device discrepancies (P < 0.001) were identified in 9 macular sectors, all GCIPL parameters (average and six-sector measurements), and RNFL measurements (average thickness and three quadrants, excluding nasal sector). ICC values demonstrated moderate-to-strong agreement: macular thickness (0.771-0.906), GCIPL (0.554-0.710), and RNFL (0.451-0.852). Machine learning models exhibited superior performance in central subfield thickness (CST) prediction, achieving test set R Conclusion: Substantial measurement discrepancies preclude direct interchangeability of SD-OCT and SS-OCT datasets. Machine learning-derived conversion algorithms significantly improve cross-device comparability, offering a robust standardization framework for multicenter research and longitudinal data integration. This methodological advancement enables harmonized analysis of OCT metrics across heterogeneous imaging platforms.
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.