ArticleScientific reports2026
Correlation between human expert macular fluid height assessment and fluid volume quantification in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the association between manually measured retinal fluid heights and AI-quantified retinal fluid volumes and to explore disease activity indicated by fluid volume distributions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) using an approved AI-based algorithm. This retrospective study analyzed baseline OCT data from a multicenter nAMD cohort. Manually measured maximum macular fluid heights on B-scans in the central millimeter (CMM) for intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) were compared with vertical fluid heights and three-dimensional volumes obtained by automated quantification using an AI-based tool (RetInSight Fluid Monitor Version 2). Out of 890 eyes, IRF was identified in the CMM in 328 eyes, SRF in 502 eyes, and PED in 705 eyes. The correlation between manual and AI-based height measurements was strong for IRF (r = 0.87) and PED (r = 0.91), and moderate for SRF (r = 0.67). Manual height-AI volume correlations within the CMM were strong for IRF (r = 0.76) and PED (r = 0.87), and moderate for SRF (r = 0.55). These correlations decreased when total fluid volumes within the central 6 mm were compared with manual CMM height, indicating that CMM height does not represent total nAMD disease activity. In conclusion, AI-derived and manual height measurements showed strong agreement for IRF and PED and moderate agreement for SRF. Maximum fluid height did not reliably reflect overall fluid volume or spatial distribution. AI-based retinal fluid assessment enables quantitative, whole-volume evaluation of retinal fluid and provides a measure of nAMD disease activity.
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.