Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Profile and Predictors of Normal Ganglion Cell–Inner Plexiform Layer Thickness Measured with Frequency-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

Open access
Mwanza, Jean-Claude, Durbin, Mary K., Budenz, Donald L., Girkin, Christopher A., Leung, Christopher K., Liebmann, Jeffrey M., Peace, James H., Werner, John S., Wollstein, Gadi·2011·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
DOI 10.1167/iovs.11-7896
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the profile and identify the predictors of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness measured with frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) in normal eyes. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-two normal subjects underwent macular and optic disc scanning in both eyes with Cirrus high-definition (HD)-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA). Linear regression analyses were performed to determine the association between GCIPL thickness and age, sex, ethnicity (Europeans, Africans, Hispanics, Asians, and Indians), eye laterality, refraction, intraocular pressure, axial length, central corneal thickness, mean retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, disc and rim areas, cup-to-disc area, vertical and horizontal cup-to-disc diameter ratios, vertical rim thickness, and OCT signal strength. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age was 46.2 ± 16.9 years (range, 18-84 years). The mean and minimum GCIPL thicknesses (±SD) were 82.1 ± 6.2 and 80.4 ± 6.4 μm, respectively. There were significant differences in GCIPL thickness between macular sectors (P < 0.05), except between the superotemporal and inferonasal sectors (P = 0.63). The superonasal sector had the thickest and the inferior had the thinnest GCIPL. The GCIPL of the superior hemisphere was thicker than that of the inferior, and the nasal sector GCIPL was significantly thicker than the temporal one (P < 0.001). The average GCIPL did not differ between male and female subjects (P = 0.16) after adjustment for axial length and between ethnic groups (P = 0.41) after adjustment for age, axial length, and RNFL thickness. Significant predictors of mean GCIPL thickness were average RNFL thickness (β = 0.37, P < 0.001), age (β = -0.083, P < 0.001), axial length (β = -0.87, P = 0.001), and male sex (β = -1.62, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The independent factors associated with thinner GCIPL include thinner RNFL, older age, longer ocular axial length, and being male. Although the magnitude of the effect of age, axial length, and sex are small, these factors should be taken into account when interpreting Cirrus HD-OCT-based GCIPL thickness measurements.

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.11-7896

Cites

33 of 33 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 275

Metadata

Authors
Mwanza, J.-C., Durbin, M. K., Budenz, D. L., Girkin, C. A., Leung, C. K., Liebmann, J. M., Peace, J. H., Werner, J. S., & Wollstein, G.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2011-10-04
Volume
52
Issue
11
Pages
7872
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
DOI
10.1167/iovs.11-7896
OpenAlex
W2022681700
Cited by
275
References
33
FWCI
15.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.