ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Quantitative Ciliary Body Imaging Using Image-Registered Swept-Source AS-OCT and Ultrasound Biomicroscopy.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate inter- and intra-device agreement of ciliary body (CB) biometric parameters measured by image-registered swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT; ANTERION, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM; Insight 100, ArcScan). Methods: Patients undergoing anterior segment imaging were prospectively enrolled. Horizontal scans were acquired under standardized illumination. One eye per participant was randomly selected for analysis. Maximum ciliary muscle thickness (CMTMAX), maximum CB thickness (CBTMAX), sulcus-to-sulcus (STS) distance, and scleral spur-to-scleral spur (SSS) distance were manually measured. Eyes with pupillary diameter differences ≥15% were excluded. Inter- and intra-device agreement were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Seventy-eight eyes from 78 subjects (mean age = 61.9 ± 12.6 years) were analyzed. Inter-device agreement was good to excellent (ICC = 0.60-0.85). Mean absolute inter-device differences were 57.6 ± 36.6 µm for CBTMAX, 40.6 ± 44.7 µm for CMTMAX, 0.28 ± 0.23 mm for SSS, and 0.18 ± 0.16 mm for STS; corresponding mean absolute relative inter-device differences were 4.8% for CBTMAX, 5.9% for CMTMAX, 1.5% for SSS, and 2.5% for STS. Greater baseline CBTMAX was the only factor consistently associated with inter-device differences in CBTMAX or CMTMAX (P < 0.001). Intra-device repeatability was excellent across all parameters for both systems (ICC = 0.78-0.90 for ANTERION and 0.80-0.94 for Insight). Conclusions: Image-registered AS-OCT and UBM provided largely concordant and highly repeatable CB measurements, although systematic inter-device differences across the two modalities suggest they cannot be considered fully interchangeable. Translational Relevance: Modern image-registered swept-source AS-OCT provides a viable, non-contact alternative to UBM for quantitative CB assessment.
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.