Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Three-Dimensional 1060-nm OCT: Choroidal Thickness Maps in Normal Subjects and Improved Posterior Segment Visualization in Cataract Patients

Esmaeelpour, Marieh, Považay, Boris, Hermann, Boris, Hofer, Bernd, Kajic, Vedran, Kapoor, Ketan, Sheen, Nik J. L., North, Rachel V., Drexler, Wolfgang·2010·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance and potential clinical role of three-dimensional (3D) 1060-nm OCT by generating choroidal thickness (ChT) maps in patients of different ages with different degrees of ametropia and axial lengths and to investigate the effect of cataract grade on OCT retinal imaging quality. METHODS: Axial lengths (ALs) and 45° fundus photographs were acquired from 64 eyes (34 healthy subjects, 19 to 80 years, ametropia +3 to -10 D). 3D 1060-nm OCT was performed over a 36° × 36° field of view with ∼7-μm axial resolution and up to 70 frames/s (512 A-scans/frame). ChT maps between retinal pigment epithelium and the choroidal-scleral interface, were generated and statistically analyzed. A further 30 eyes (19 subjects), with cataracts assessed with the LOCS III scale, were imaged with 3D 1060-nm OCT and 800-nm OCT, and visualization of the posterior segment was compared qualitatively. RESULTS: In 64 eyes, ChT maps displayed a thickness decrease with increasing AL. Subfoveal ChT was 315 ± 106 μm (mean ± SD), negatively correlated with AL (R(2) = -0.47, P < 0.001). Averaged ChT maps of eyes with AL < 23.39 mm showed an increased ChT in an area ∼1500 μm inferior, compared with subfoveal ChT. Eyes with AL > 24.5 mm showed a larger variation and a thicker ChT superiorly than inferiorly. Reduced signal strength in cataractous eyes was found in 65% of the 800-nm OCT images, but in only 10% of the 1060-nm OCT images. CONCLUSIONS: The imaging performance of 3D 1060-nm OCT is unique, producing maps that show the variation in ChT over the entire field of view, in relation to axial length. This imaging system has the potential of visualizing a novel clinical diagnostic biomarker. Compared with 800-nm OCT, it provides superior visualization of the posterior pole in cataractous eyes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.10-5196

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Esmaeelpour, M., Považay, B., Hermann, B., Hofer, B., Kajic, V., Kapoor, K., Sheen, N. J. L., North, R. V., & Drexler, W.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2010-10-01
Volume
51
Issue
10
Pages
5260
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2085938135
Cited by
222
References
2
FWCI
13.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.