Progressive Choriocapillaris Changes on Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Correlate With Stage Progression in AMD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We investigated the association between inner choroid flow deficit percentage (IC-FD%) using swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) and progression of AMD. Methods: Retrospective, observational study including 64 eyes (42 participants) with early or intermediate AMD at baseline. Participants had two or more consecutive swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography covering a period of at least 18 months. Demographics, visual acuity, and AMD staging based on Beckman classification were reviewed. OCT was analyzed for hyperreflective foci, subretinal drusenoid deposits, hyporeflective drusen cores, and subfoveal choroidal thickness. IC-FD% was measured within the central 3- and 6-mm using a 16-µm slab, after compensation and binarization (Phansalkar method). Mixed-effects Cox regression models assessed the association between imaging biomarkers and AMD progression. Results: During follow-up (37 ± 9 months), 4 eyes with early AMD (31%) progressed to intermediate AMD and 30 (59%) eyes with intermediate AMD developed late AMD (19 geographic atrophy; 11 wet AMD). Baseline hyporeflective drusen core was associated with geographic atrophy development (P < 0.01), whereas greater IC-FD% (3-mm) was associated with wet AMD (P = 0.03). Time-varying analysis showed that faster subfoveal choroidal thickness reduction and IC-FD% (6-mm) increase were associated with geographic atrophy onset (P < 0.05), whereas IC-FD% (3-mm) increase was associated with wet AMD (P = 0.03). Notably, greater IC-FD% increases in the 3 mm (area under the curve = 0.72) and 6 mm (area under the curve = 0.89) were better predictive of wet AMD and geographic atrophy development, respectively. Conclusions: Our longitudinal IC-FD% assessment emphasizes the role of progressive choriocapillaris changes as a biomarker for AMD progression. Our findings support that widespread choriocapillaris alterations (6 mm) may precede progression to geographic atrophy, whereas more central choriocapillaris loss (3 mm) may provide an ischemic stimulus for wet AMD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".