ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparison of Three-Dimensional Choroidal Contour in Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Their Fellow Eyes.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the three-dimensional choroidal contour map of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and their fellow eyes. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 30 patients with nAMD in one eye and early/intermediate AMD in the fellow eye. Wide-field (12 × 12 mm) swept source optical coherence tomography volumetric scans were obtained. Choroidal inner boundaries (CIBs) and choroidal outer boundaries (COBs) were delineated based on our previously reported deep learning model. Best-fit spherical radius (R, mm) was calculated for CIB and COB and compared in both groups using paired t tests. The regional variation of RCIB and RCOB in different sectors (superior, inferior, nasal, temporal, and central) was compared. P values of ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The mean RCIB was 32.8 ± 8.6 mm and 32.5 ± 9.4 mm in nAMD group and their fellow eyes, respectively (P = 0.80). Similarly, the mean RCOB was 31.3 ± 7.0 mm in the nAMD group with no statistically significant variation in their fellow eyes (early/intermediate AMD, 31.5 ± 9.0 mm; P = 0.88). Comparison of RCIB (nAMD, 15.0 ± 9.1 mm; fellow eye, 15.2 ± 10.4 mm; P = 0.91) and RCOB (nAMD, 13.6 ± 8.1 mm; fellow eye, 12.2 ± 9.0 mm; P = 0.48) in the central sector where AMD lesions were located was not significant. Intragroup sectoral comparisons of RCIB and RCOB in both groups were statistically significant (all P values < .01). Conclusions: RCIB and RCOB exhibited significant regional variations across different sectors in both eyes, including nAMD and fellow eyes. However, the comparison of RCIB and RCOB between the two groups was not significantly different. Translational Relevance: The study of choroidal contour may help to understand the pathological changes in age-related macular degeneration.
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.