ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of choroidal hypertransmission and retinal pigment epithelium loss for quantification of geographic atrophy across commonly used SD-OCT devices.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the consistency of choroidal hypertransmission (HT) and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) loss area measurements among three commonly used spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices and assess their robustness for monitoring of geographic atrophy (GA). Patients with GA were imaged during a single visit using the three different OCT: (1) Heidelberg Spectralis; (2) Zeiss Cirrus; (3) Topcon Maestro2. Expert readers manually annotated a total of 120 OCT volumes for RPE loss and HT. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) were calculated to quantify the spatial overlap between the lesions within each OCT device. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess inter-device agreement. Spatial overlap between HT and RPE loss ranged from moderate to good, with HT lesions being significantly larger than RPE loss areas across all devices (p < 0.001). Overall agreement was good for HT and RPE loss. Systematic biases emerged, with Cirrus yielding consistently smaller measurements compared to Spectralis or Maestro2. Lesion measurements demonstrated good agreement across all three OCT devices, yet device-dependent differences require caution when comparing data. Accounting for inter-device variability is an essential step toward reliable clinical endpoints and successful integration of automated OCT algorithms into clinical trials and routine AMD care.
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.