The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choroidal vascularity index as a measure of vascular status of the choroid: Measurements in healthy eyes from a population-based study
Open accessAbstract
The vascularity of the choroid has been implicated in the pathogenesis of various eye diseases. To date, no established quantifiable parameters to estimate vascular status of the choroid exists. Choroidal vascularity index (CVI) may potentially be used to assess vascular status of the choroid. We aimed to establish normative database for CVI and identify factors associated with CVI in healthy eyes. In this population-based study on 345 healthy eyes, choroidal enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography scans were segmented by modified image binarization technique. Total subfoveal choroidal area (TCA) was segmented into luminal (LA) and stromal (SA) area. CVI was calculated as the proportion of LA to TCA. Linear regression was used to identify ocular and systemic factors associated with CVI and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT). Subfoveal CVI ranged from 60.07 to 71.27% with a mean value of 65.61 ± 2.33%. CVI was less variable than SFCT (coefficient of variation for CVI was 3.55 vs 40.30 for SFCT). Higher CVI was associated with thicker SFCT, but not associated with most physiological variables. CVI was elucidated as a significant determinant of SFCT. While SFCT was affected by many factors, CVI remained unaffected suggesting CVI to be a more robust marker of choroidal diseases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
(1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,856
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316447303300309 · Cited by 3,354
The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys
Foster, P. J. (2002) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.86.2.238 · Cited by 2,365
Enhanced Depth Imaging Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography
Spaide, R. F., Koizumi, H., & Pozonni, M. C. (2008) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.05.032 · Cited by 2,180
Nickla, D. L., & Wallman, J. (2010) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2009.12.002 · Cited by 1,945
An introduction to digital image processing
Niblack, W. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,827
Enhanced Depth Imaging Optical Coherence Tomography of the Choroid in Highly Myopic Eyes
Fujiwara, T., Imamura, Y., Margolis, R., Slakter, J. S., & Spaide, R. F. (2009) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.04.029 · Cited by 823
Alm, A., & Bill, A. (1973) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/0014-4835(73)90185-1 · Cited by 584
Chung, S. E., Kang, S. W., Lee, J. H., & Kim, Y. T. (2011) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.09.012 · Cited by 580
Metadata
- Authors
- Agrawal, R., Gupta, P., Tan, K.-A., Cheung, C. M. G., Wong, T.-Y., & Cheng, C.-Y.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2016-02-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21090-21090
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2409743699
- Cited by
- 721
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 25.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Choroidal vascularity index as a measure of vascular status of the choroid: Measurements in healthy eyes from a population-based study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/srep21090
- The paper
- Agrawal, R., Gupta, P., Tan, K.-A., Cheung, C. M. G., Wong, T.-Y., & Cheng, C.-Y. (2016). Choroidal vascularity index as a measure of vascular status of the choroid: Measurements in healthy eyes from a population-based study. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21090
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
