ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
In Vivo Cone Photoreceptor Topography of the Human Foveola.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. 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.
- Sub-cone visual acuity can be achieved with less than 1 arcmin retinal slip.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Neural network assisted annotation and analysis tool to study in-vivo foveolar cone photoreceptor topography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To study in vivo cone topography of the normal human foveola. Methods: The fovea in both eyes of 30 healthy participants was imaged with adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy. High-resolution image montages spanning two degrees of visual angle were created and cone center locations annotated. Continuous cone density maps were computed by a Voronoi cell area approach to also yield the topographical center, the cone density centroid (CDC). Cone density profiles were extracted and fit with a four-parameter decay function, D = D0 / (1 + (E/a)b)c, with D as cone density (cones/mm2), D0 as cone density at the CDC, and E as eccentricity (µm). Results: Across eyes, D0 was 175,474 ± 20,543 cones/mm2, on average (range 136,001-216,209 cones/mm2). Density dropped anisotropically along the meridians, shallower horizontally, with average best fit parameters (a, b, c) of 61.95, 2.469, 0.268 for horizontal, and 59.11, 2.012, 0.357, for vertical profiles, respectively. In radially averaged profiles, cone density reached 50% of D0 at 151 ± 17 µm eccentricity (range 128-193 µm). Temporal cone density was slightly higher than nasal. Most topographical metrics were highly correlated between fellow eyes. Conclusions: Despite a 1.6-fold range in absolute cone density, foveolar density profiles could be well described by a sigmoidal decay function across all eyes. This established a normative cone density profile of the healthy foveola. It allowed cone density estimation in cases of only partially available data, which alleviates resolution demands for future studies and renders possible retrospective analyses of foveolar cone topography in sub-optimal imagery.
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.