ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Acoustic Radiation Force Optical Coherence Elastography of the Crystalline Lens: Safety.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vivo elastography of the human retina using light-evoked intrinsic actuation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Clinical multimodal Brillouin microscopy-optical coherence elastography system for lens biomechanics.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- In Vivo Safety Evaluation of Acoustic Radiation Force for Optical Coherence Elastography of the Crystalline Lens.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the safety of acoustic radiation force optical coherence elastography in the crystalline lens in situ. Methods: Acoustic radiation force (ARF) produced by an immersion single-element ultrasound transducer (nominal frequency = 3.5 MHz) was characterized using a needle hydrophone and used for optical coherence elastography (OCE) of the crystalline lens. Preamplified signals at 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000, and 1250 mV peak amplitude were tested on ex vivo porcine eyes (n = 21). Three-dimensional optical coherence tomography (OCT) and confocal microscopy images were acquired before and after ARF exposure to each signal amplitude to determine damage. Results: The acoustic intensity of the ultrasound transducer at 100-mV preamplified peak amplitude input demonstrated a signal-to-noise ratio high enough for tracking elastic wave propagation in the lens and spatial-peak pulse-average (SPPA) intensity of 24.1 W/cm² and mechanical index (MI) of 0.46. The SPPA intensity was lower than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety limit (28 W/cm2), but the MI was twice the safety limit (0.23). OCT structural and confocal microscopy images showed damage only at levels exceeding 1150 W/cm2 and 3.2 for SPPA intensity and MI, respectively. Conclusions: OCT and confocal microscopy showed that, even when the intensity exceeded FDA recommendations (>100 mV), no noticeable damage was observed. Although a further reduction in acoustic intensity is necessary to meet FDA safety limits, ARF-based elastography shows promise for safe clinical translation in quantitatively characterizing lenticular biomechanical properties. Translational Relevance: This work assessed the safety standards for acoustic radiation force to be used in human lens elastography according to the FDA safety limits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.