ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Quantitative Evaluation of Geographic Atrophy Progression Using Geographic Atrophy Lesion Front Displacement.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the temporal behavior and relative variability of a margin-based metric, lesion front displacement, for quantifying geographic atrophy (GA) progression secondary to age-related macular degeneration and to compare its performance with conventional metrics. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal analysis included 103 untreated fellow eyes from the MAHALO clinical trial with GA and 18-month follow-up. Fundus autofluorescence images were obtained at baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months. Five progression metrics were calculated: total area change, square root area change, total perimeter change, perimeter-adjusted growth rate (λ'PA), and lesion front displacement. Linearity was assessed using simple linear regression and the Harvey-Collier test. Variability was evaluated using standard deviation, variance ratios, and the Fligner-Killeen test. Results: Linearity was rejected for area and square root area change but not for lesion front displacement, perimeter change, or λ'PA. Lesion front displacement showed a relatively higher coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.504), whereas area (0.116), square root area (0.104), perimeter (0.001), and λ'PA (0.018) exhibited lower goodness of fit to a linear model. Lesion front displacement demonstrated lower dispersion across follow-up intervals. Variance ratio analysis indicated greater variability for all comparator metrics. Variability was significantly lower for lesion front displacement than for perimeter change and λ'PA at 12 and 18 months (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Lesion front displacement demonstrated more consistent linear approximation and lower variability compared with several conventional GA progression metrics. This margin-based approach may serve as a complementary metric for longitudinal assessment of GA progression.
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.