ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
ƒ(Cell): Software for Reproducible Analysis of Optoretinograms.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: There has been a marked increase in use of a noninvasive functional imaging technique called optoretinography (ORG). As more groups use ORGs, it is crucial to have a consistent methodology, and understand what analysis parameters influence repeatability. In this work, we present an open-source software library called ƒ(Cell) designed to facilitate reproducible and repeatable analyses of ORG data. Methods: We designed ƒ(Cell) as a Python software library that can co-register and analyze ORG datasets, while also enabling process auditing. To validate the software, we used our previously obtained normative optoretinography datasets as well as datasets from six other groups. We performed a variance decomposition analysis of all ƒ(Cell) parameters. Results: Using ƒ(Cell), we successfully read and analyzed all seven datasets, despite varying data structures, file formats, and imaging protocols. Our full factorial analysis of 12,960 parameter permutations across 16 normative individuals resulted in 3 significant parameters (P < 0.001) with at least a small effect (ƞ2 > 0.01): segmentation radius, normalization, and relativization method, with ƞ2 = 0.213, 0.037, and 0.012, respectively. Conclusions: In a full factorial analysis of analysis parameters, we found that the mean subtraction relativization method, a segmentation radius matched to the spacing of the cells of interest, and score-based normalization resulted in the lowest coefficient of variance. Overall, we found that ƒ(Cell) enables consistent, reproducible, and auditable analyses of intensity-based ORG (iORG) datasets. Translational Relevance: This work is designed to facilitate reproducible analyses of ORG datasets to aid in the use of ORG in clinical trials.
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.