Literature DB >> 35991930

Retinal magnification factors at the fixation locus derived from schematic eyes with four individualized surfaces.

Xiaojing Huang1,2, Trevor Anderson3, Alfredo Dubra2.   

Abstract

Retinal magnification factors (RMFs) allow the conversion of angles to lengths in retinal images. In this work, we propose paraxial and non-paraxial RMF calculation methods that incorporate the individual topography and separation of the anterior and posterior surfaces of the cornea and crystalline lens, assuming homogeneous ocular media. Across 34 eyes, the two RMF methods differ by 0.1% on average, due to surface tilt, decenter, and lack of rotational symmetry in the non-paraxial modeling, which results in up to 2.2% RMF variation with retinal meridian. Differences with widely used individualized RMF calculation methods are smallest for eyes with ∼24 mm axial length, and as large as 7.5% in a 29.7 mm long eye (15D myope). To better model the capture of retinal images, we propose the tracing of chief rays, instead of the scaling of posterior nodal or principal distances often used in RMF definitions. We also report that RMF scale change is approximately proportional to both refractive error and axial separation between the ophthalmoscope's exit pupil and the eye's entrance pupil, resulting in RMF changes as large as 13% for a 1cm displacement in a 15D myopic eye. Our biometry data shows weak correlation and statistical significance between surface radii and refractive error, as well as axial length, whether considering all eyes in the study, or just the high myopes, defined as those with refractive error sphere equivalent ≤ -4D. In contrast, vitreous thicknesses show a strong correlation (r ≤ -0.92) and significance (p ≤ 10-13) with refractive error when considering all eyes or just high myopes (r ≤ -0.95; p ≤ 10-5). We also found that potential RMF change with depth of cycloplegia and/or residual accommodation is smaller than 0.2%. Finally, we propose the reporting of individual ocular biometry data and a detailed RMF calculation method description in scientific publications to facilitate the comparison of retinal imaging biomarker data across studies.
© 2022 Optica Publishing Group under the terms of the Optica Open Access Publishing Agreement.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35991930      PMCID: PMC9352277          DOI: 10.1364/BOE.460553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomed Opt Express        ISSN: 2156-7085            Impact factor:   3.562


  77 in total

1.  Correction of geometric and refractive image distortions in optical coherence tomography applying Fermat's principle.

Authors:  Volker Westphal; Andrew Rollins; Sunita Radhakrishnan; Joseph Izatt
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2002-05-06       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  Geometry-invariant gradient refractive index lens: analytical ray tracing.

Authors:  Mehdi Bahrami; Alexander V Goncharov
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.170

3.  Optical coherence tomography for quantitative surface topography.

Authors:  Sergio Ortiz; Damian Siedlecki; Laura Remon; Susana Marcos
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 1.980

Review 4.  The refractive index of the human cornea: A review.

Authors:  Sudi Patel; Larysa Tutchenko
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2019-05-05       Impact factor: 3.077

5.  An image-processing strategy for the segmentation and quantification of microaneurysms in fluorescein angiograms of the ocular fundus.

Authors:  T Spencer; J A Olson; K C McHardy; P F Sharp; J V Forrester
Journal:  Comput Biomed Res       Date:  1996-08

Review 6.  A paradigm shift in imaging biomarkers in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth; Sebastian M Waldstein
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 21.198

7.  Individual variations in human cone photoreceptor packing density: variations with refractive error.

Authors:  Toco Yuen Ping Chui; Hongxin Song; Stephen A Burns
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis.

Authors:  W Haigis; B Lege; N Miller; B Schneider
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Central serous chorioretinopathy imaging biomarkers.

Authors:  Sumit Randhir Singh; Claudio Iovino; Dinah Zur; Dua Masarwa; Matias Iglicki; Ramkailash Gujar; Marco Lupidi; Dmitrii S Maltsev; Elodie Bousquet; Mehdi Bencheqroun; Francesca Amoroso; Luiz H Lima; Srikanta Kumar Padhy; Vishal Govindahari; Khushboo Chandra; Eric H Souied; Francisco J Rodriguez; Laura A Daza; Hernan A Rios; Carlo Cagini; Enrico Peiretti; Francine Behar-Cohen; Jay Chhablani
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Human Foveal Cone and RPE Cell Topographies and Their Correspondence With Foveal Shape.

Authors:  Rigmor C Baraas; Hilde R Pedersen; Kenneth Knoblauch; Stuart J Gilson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.