ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Comparison of Measurement Techniques for Photoreceptor Loss in Geographic Atrophy.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Ellipsoid zone (EZ) loss is an emerging end point in geographic atrophy (GA) clinical trials. Standardized ground truth is important to train artificial intelligence models in this biomarker. This study compares segmentation and edge detection methods for quantifying EZ and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) loss on optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods: OCT images from 50 eyes with GA were analyzed using segmentation (OCT Explorer) and edge detection (3D Slicer). With segmentation, the EZ and RPE borders were traced to generate thickness maps. For edge detection, graders marked regions of complete EZ or RPE loss on each B-scan. En face maps were generated from both methods and compared. Longitudinal progression was evaluated in 15 eyes with 1 year of follow-up. Results: The mean EZ loss area was 11.09 ± 5.40 mm2 by segmentation and 9.98 ± 5.01 mm2 by edge detection (P < 0.001). The mean RPE loss area was 7.66 ± 4.40 mm2 and 7.48 ± 4.23 mm2, respectively (P = 0.53) The EZ/RPE ratio was larger with segmentation (1.59 vs. 1.42; P < 0.001). Longitudinally, the mean EZ loss change was 1.71 mm²/year vs. 1.45 mm²/year (P = 0.43), and the RPE loss change was 1.74 vs. 1.60 mm²/year (P = 0.23). Conclusions: Segmentation and edge detection showed high agreement for EZ and RPE loss, but systematic differences were observed in EZ measurement. Segmentation yielded larger EZ areas by including attenuation over drusen, while edge detection provided more conservative boundaries restricted to GA only. Translational Relevance: Measurement method influences ellipsoid zone quantification, with implications for trial design and artificial intelligence ground truth development.
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.