Foveal center marking is a key step in retinal image analysis. We investigated the discordance between the adaptive optics (AO) montage center (AMC) and the foveal pit center (FPC) and its implications for cone mosaic analysis using a commercial flood-illumination AO camera.
Thirty eyes of 30 individuals (including 15 healthy and 15 patients with rod-cone dystrophy) were included. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography was used to determine the FPC, and flood-illumination AO imaging was performed with overlapping image frames to create an AO montage. The AMC was determined by averaging the (0,0) coordinates in the four paracentral overlapping AO image frames. Cone mosaic measurements at various retinal eccentricities were compared between corresponding retinal loci relative to the AMC or FPC.
AMCs were located temporally to the FPCs in 14 of 15 eyes in both groups. The average AMC-FPC discordance was 0.85° among healthy controls and 0.33° among patients with rod-cone dystrophy (P < 0.05). The distance of the AMC from the FPC was a significant determinant of the cone density (β estimate = 218 cells/deg2/deg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 107-330; P < 0.001) and inter-cone distance (β estimate = 0.28 arcmin/deg; 95% CI, 0.15-0.40; P < 0.001), after adjustment for age, sex, axial length, spherical equivalent, eccentricity, and disease status.
There is a marked mismatch between the AMC and FPC in healthy eyes that may be modified by disease process such as rod-cone dystrophy. We recommend users of AO imaging systems carefully align the AO montage with a foveal anatomical landmark, such as the FPC, to ensure precise and reproducible localization of the eccentricities and regions of interest for cone mosaic analysis.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2022.
All research outputs
#14,614,797
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
#4,506
of 7,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,066
of 445,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
#21
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
