ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Noninterchangeability of Vessel Density Measurements Across Next-Generation SS-OCTA Systems.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Comparing swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) vessel density in the superficial and deep capillary plexuses across leading OCTA systems. Methods: OCTAs were acquired from healthy participants using two OCTA systems (BMizar 400 kHz and Yalkaid 100 kHz, TowardPi, Beijing, China) with scan sizes of 3 × 3, 6 × 6, 12 × 12, and 15 × 15 mm2. The vessel density was quantified using the manufacturer's software. Results: Across 30 subjects comprising 60 eyes and a total of 225 OCTA scans, significant interdevice differences were observed at the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study sector level in all eight scan size × plexus comparisons (three-way analysis of variance; P < 1.16 × 10e-4). The mean BMizar vessel density values for the superficial and deep plexuses were 43.4% ± 1.6% and 44.9% ± 1.5%, 44.7% ± 2.7% and 47.9% ± 1.1%, 44.2% ± 1.3% and 45.7% ± 1.1%, and 42.4 ± 1.6 % and 44.3 ± 1.3% for the 3 × 3, 6 × 6, 12 × 12, and 15 × 15 mm² scans; the Yalkaid values were lower. BMizar showed greater vessel density than Yalkaid, particularly in 3 × 3 mm² deep slab scans, with differences of approximately 5% to 10%. Across scans larger than 3 × 3 mm², BMizar showed greater central vessel density; the peripheral patterns varied, with reversals favoring Yalkaid and greater border effects in larger fields of view. Conclusions: Despite interdevice differences, both devices showed consistent OCTA acquisition. Translational Relevance: Device differences may affect clinical interpretation, longitudinal follow-up, and multicenter studies.
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.