ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Scan Density Matters: Reproducibility of AI-Derived OCT Biomarkers in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine how optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan density affects quantification of artificial intelligence (AI)-derived structural biomarkers in diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify density thresholds beyond which biomarker fidelity is compromised. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 401 DME eyes underwent three same-session OCT acquisitions using 97-, 49-, and 25-B-scan raster protocols on a single device. A CE-certified deep learning pipeline quantified intraretinal fluid (IRF) volume, subretinal fluid (SRF) volume, inflammatory hyperreflective foci (I-HRF), and photoreceptor integrity metrics. Linear mixed-effects models assessed density effects, Bland-Altman analyses quantified fixed and proportional bias, and volumetric thresholds were computed for deviations beyond ±0.10 mm³. Acquisition efficiency integrated biomarker variability and scan time. Results: A total of 9624 biomarker measurements were analyzed with >98% completeness. SRF volume, I-HRF counts, and photoreceptor integrity metrics were stable across scan densities. IRF volume was density-dependent: the 25-scan protocol overestimated IRF relative to 97- and 49-scan acquisitions (mean bias -0.077 and -0.079 mm³; both P < 0.001), whereas 97- and 49-scan measurements were interchangeable. Overestimation increased with fluid burden (IRF threshold ∼1.1 mm³). Although the 25-scan protocol was fastest (10.7 seconds vs. 23.6 seconds and 50.3 seconds), the 49-scan protocol provided the best balance between speed and precision. Conclusions: Most AI-derived OCT biomarkers in DME are robust to reduced scan density, but IRF volume shows increasing error with undersampling. Higher-density scans should be reserved when precise fluid quantification is required. Translational Relevance: Scan density materially influences AI-derived IRF quantification. Identifying practical acquisition thresholds enables protocol standardization while reducing imaging burden in clinical practice and trials.
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.