ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Spatial-Frequency-Dependent Contrast Sensitivity in Early and Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate spatial-frequency-dependent differences in contrast sensitivity across early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (eAMD and iAMD) and explore the discriminative value of visual function metrics beyond age. Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Subjects: Ninety-six participants from the Multimodal Assessment of Visual Function in Intermediate AMD study, including 49 controls, 14 participants with eAMD, and 33 with iAMD. Methods: Contrast sensitivity was assessed using the quick contrast sensitivity function method at six spatial frequencies from 1 to 18 cycles per degree, with derivation of contrast acuity and area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF). Additional visual function measures included microperimetry mean sensitivity, best-corrected visual acuity, and low-luminance visual acuity. Linear mixed-effects models evaluated associations between AMD stage, spatial frequency, and contrast sensitivity after adjustment for age- and lens-related covariates. Secondary analyses assessed the discriminative performance of visual function metrics using receiver operating characteristic analyses. Main Outcome Measures: Contrast sensitivity across spatial frequencies and discriminative performance of visual function metrics. Results: In age- and lens-adjusted mixed-effects models, contrast sensitivity differed significantly by AMD stage ( Conclusions: Contrast sensitivity differences in AMD are spatial-frequency-dependent and vary by disease stage after adjustment for age and lens-related covariates. Quick contrast sensitivity function-derived metrics showed modest incremental discrimination for eAMD, whereas microperimetry mean sensitivity and selected low-frequency contrast sensitivity measures better distinguished iAMD from controls and eAMD. These findings support spatial-frequency-resolved functional testing as an exploratory measure for AMD characterization; larger, age- and lens-balanced longitudinal cohorts are needed to determine prognostic utility. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of 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.