ArticleBrain communications2026
Optical coherence tomography angiography reveals insights into complementary vascular and neurodegenerative mechanisms in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Brain communications, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical coherence tomography angiography quantifies retinal microvasculature biomarkers, offering insights into neurovascular mechanisms underlying brain damage in multiple sclerosis. This study evaluated these potential mechanisms of neurodegeneration by examining associations between optical coherence tomography and optical coherence tomography angiography metrics, brain volumes and clinical outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis. This cross-sectional study included multiple sclerosis patients from a prospective cohort. Participants underwent optical coherence tomography/optical coherence tomography angiography, vision and clinical assessments and brain MRI. Age- and sex-matched controls underwent optical coherence tomography/optical coherence tomography angiography. The OCTA Vascular Analyser toolbox was used to derive metrics that reflect superficial plexus retinal vessel density (vessel area density, vessel length density) and network complexity. Differences in optical coherence tomography angiography and optical coherence tomography (peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer) metrics between controls and patient eyes and associations with brain volumes and visual outcomes were analysed using linear-mixed models, adjusted for age, sex, disease duration and optic neuritis. Vision outcome models were compared using Akaike Information Criterion. The study included 323 multiple sclerosis patients (603 eyes; 98 with prior optic neuritis) and 80 controls (147 eyes), with 267 patients undergoing brain MRI. Patients exhibited reduced vessel area density and vessel length density and thinner peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer in non-optic neuritis eyes compared with controls. Optic neuritis eyes showed deviations compared with non-optic neuritis eyes. In patients, reductions in optical coherence tomography angiography and optical coherence tomography metrics were associated with smaller volumes of the primary visual cortex (calcarine cortex and occipital pole) and thalamus but reduced vessel area density/vessel length density correlated predominantly with smaller higher-order visual processing region volumes, such as the cuneus (vessel area density: β = 0.36, vessel length density: β = 0.070), inferior occipital (vessel area density: β = 0.28, vessel length density: β = 0.057) and occipital fusiform gyrus (vessel area density: β = 0.51, vessel length density: β = 0.094) (all
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.