ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Cross-Device Field-of-View Scale Differences in Clinical OCT Angiography: Phantom Calibration and Large-Scale Clinical Validation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Device-specific field-of-view (FOV) may affect quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) metrics. This study quantifies inter-device FOV scale differences across four commonly used clinical OCTA devices. Methods: Four devices were evaluated under a nominal 6×6 mm (or 20°×20°) scanning protocol: Zeiss Cirrus, Heidelberg Spectralis, Topcon Triton, and Topcon Maestro2. Device-specific spatial scale was assessed by (1) phantom calibration using a model eye with a 1×1 mm checkerboard, computing scale factors relative to Zeiss Cirrus; and (2) in vivo validation, registering same-eye, same-visit retinal images from the three devices to those of Zeiss Cirrus and extracting scale factors from the transformation matrices. Correlation between DICOM-implied FOV and spherical equivalent (SE) was assessed, where DICOM-implied FOV equals pixel-spacing × image-dimension. Results: Phantom measurements showed that Spectralis, Triton, and Maestro2 each captured a systematically smaller FOV than Cirrus, with geometric mean scale factors of 0.933, 0.954, and 0.967. The same pattern was observed across 801 eyes from 556 participants, giving geometric mean scale factors of 0.939, 0.943, and 0.960, agreeing with phantom estimates within 1.2%. DICOM-implied FOV was fixed at 6.000×6.000 mm for three devices but varied from 5.212×5.209 to 6.743×6.739 mm for Spectralis, correlating with SE (ρ = -0.635, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Systematic FOV discrepancies exist across clinical OCTA devices despite nominally identical protocols, and DICOM pixel-spacing should be interpreted with caution as a spatial measure. Translational Relevance: The reported device-specific scale factors could serve as magnification corrections for quantitative OCTA metrics, addressing the systematic spatial inter-device discrepancies.
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.