ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Discrepancies Between Autofluorescence Imaging Modalities in CNGB3-Associated Achromatopsia and Correlation With Ellipsoid Zone Continuity.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To explore discrepancies on fundus autofluorescence (FAF) obtained with two widely used devices in patients with CNGB3-associated achromatopsia, with respect to the central foveal signal. Secondly, to explore continuity of the foveal ellipsoid zone (EZ) in these patients. Methods: Patients who had undergone blue (488 nm; Heidelberg Spectralis) and green (532 nm; Optos) FAF imaging during the same visit were included. The central foveal signal was graded qualitatively as brighter or darker compared to the wider foveal/parafoveal region. Optical coherence tomography images from the same visit were also graded (masked to FAF grading) with respect to foveal EZ continuity. Results: Forty-one patients (24 females; mean age, 32 ± 19 years) were included. For blue FAF, the central foveal signal was graded darker in all cases. For green FAF, the central fovea was brighter in 11 patients (27%), indicating discordance with blue FAF. The discordant group were significantly younger (P = 0.022). The EZ line was gradable in 40 patients: 22 (55%) had continuous foveal EZ in both eyes; these were younger than those with an interrupted EZ in one or both eyes (P < 0.0001). All patients discordant for FAF images had continuous foveal EZ. Conclusions: Discordance occurred between the FAF modalities in more than one-quarter of patients; these patients were significantly younger, and all had a continuous EZ line. Investigating mechanisms of discordance could yield pathophysiological insights. Translational Relevance: FAF platforms are not interchangeable; these findings could inform the design of natural history studies and therapeutic trials for this condition.
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.