ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Comparison of Clarus, Optos, and Heidelberg Systems for Geographic Atrophy Area Measurements.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare geographic atrophy (GA) area measurements across 3 modern fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging platforms: Heidelberg Spectralis, Optos California, and Zeiss Clarus 700. Design: A prospective, single-center, cross-sectional comparative imaging study. Participants: Sixty-one eyes from 39 participants aged ≥50 years with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Methods: Participants were imaged sequentially on the same day with all 3 devices: Optos California FAF (532 nm green excitation, 200° ultra-widefield), Zeiss Clarus 700 FAF (blue 435-500 nm and green 500-585 nm channels, 133° widefield), and Heidelberg Spectralis FAF (488 nm blue excitation, 30° field). Geographic atrophy was segmented with manual planimetry for all modalities; Heidelberg images were also segmented semiautomatically with RegionFinder. RegionFinder area values served as the reference standard for comparisons. Main Outcome Measures: Mean GA area by imaging system and agreement with RegionFinder. Results: Agreement with RegionFinder was high across imaging systems (intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.96-0.99), but systematic differences were noted in GA area measurements. Geographic atrophy measured larger on average with Clarus Green and Heidelberg manual planimetry (0.49 mm Conclusions: Geographic atrophy area measurements are reproducible within each FAF imaging system but systematically differ between platforms and wavelengths. Repeated use with the same device recommended for clinical trials. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.