ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Automated Quantification of Decreased Fundus Autofluorescence in Stargardt Disease Using
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of Design: A cross-sectional reproducibility and agreement study. Participants: A total of 316 eyes from 158 genetically confirmed Stargardt patients were analyzed. For intragrader repeatability, 114 FAF images were reassessed in a masked, repeated-measures design. Methods: Decreased autofluorescence and DDAF lesion areas were independently quantified by five certified graders using either manual delineation with Heidelberg RegionFinder or a threshold-based automated algorithm, with automated quantification and cross-method agreement analyses restricted to a prespecified central 6-mm fovea-centered region. Agreement and repeatability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman plots, and Passing-Bablok regression. Both raw and square-root-transformed lesion areas were evaluated. Main Outcome Measures: Repeatability (intragrader ICC, SEM, and MDC), reproducibility (intergrader ICC), and agreement (CCC and bias in regression analysis) between and within manual and automated methods. Results: The automated method achieved excellent intragrader repeatability for both DAF and DDAF (ICCs ≥0.988, SEM ≤0.71 mm Conclusions: The automated approach provides near-perfect repeatability and high agreement with manual grading, offering a scalable, objective alternative for quantifying hypo-auto-fluorescent lesions in Stargardt disease. Manual methods are generally reliable but more variable, especially for DDAF, and benefit from square-root transformation. Findings reflect a pediatric/adolescent single-trial predominantly Asian cohort. Financial Disclosures: The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.