Location-Specific Thickness Patterns in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration Reveals Anatomical Differences in Multiple Retinal Layers

Matt Trinh; Vincent Khou; Michael Kalloniatis; Lisa Nivison-Smith

doi:10.1167/iovs.62.13.13

. 2021 Oct 18;62(13):13. doi: 10.1167/iovs.62.13.13

Location-Specific Thickness Patterns in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration Reveals Anatomical Differences in Multiple Retinal Layers

Matt Trinh ^1,², Vincent Khou ^1,², Michael Kalloniatis ^1,², Lisa Nivison-Smith ^1,^2,^✉

PMCID: PMC8525852 PMID: 34661608

Abstract

Purpose

To examine individual retinal layers’ location-specific patterns of thicknesses in intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD) using optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Methods

OCT macular cube scans were retrospectively acquired from 84 iAMD eyes of 84 participants and 84 normal eyes of 84 participants propensity-score matched on age, sex, and spherical equivalent refraction. Thicknesses of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), ganglion cell layer (GCL), inner plexiform layer (IPL), inner nuclear layer (INL), outer plexiform layer (OPL), outer nuclear layer + Henle's fiber layer (ONL_+HFL), inner- and outer-segment layers (IS/OS), and retinal pigment epithelium to Bruch's membrane (RPE-BM) were calculated across an 8 × 8 grid (total 24° × 24° area). Location-specific analysis was performed using cluster_(normal) and grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparisons.

Results

In iAMD versus normal eyes, the central RPE-BM was thickened (mean difference ± SEM up to 27.45% ± 7.48%, P < 0.001; up to 7.6 SD-from-normal), whereas there was thinned outer (OPL, ONL_+HFL, and non-central RPE-BM, up to −6.76% ± 2.47%, P < 0.001; up to −1.6 SD-from-normal) and inner retina (GCL and IPL, up to −4.83% ± 1.56%, P < 0.01; up to −1.7 SD-from-normal) with eccentricity-based effects. Interlayer correlations were greater against the ONL_+HFL (mean |r| ± SEM 0.19 ± 0.03, P = 0.14 to < 0.0001) than the RPE-BM (0.09 ± 0, P = 0.72 to < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Location-specific analysis suggests altered retinal anatomy between iAMD and normal eyes. These data could direct clinical diagnosis and monitoring of AMD toward targeted locations.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration, clustering, OCT, thickness, topography, anatomy

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is typically characterized as an outer retinal degeneration, and, subsequently, early investigative efforts into the anatomy of AMD eyes were focused on the outer retinal layers.¹^,² With the advent of optical coherence tomography (OCT), in vivo quantification of all individual retinal layer thicknesses has become more accessible. A plethora of OCT studies have since reported varying macular thickness changes across the whole retina in the early stages of AMD including the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL),³^–⁶ ganglion cell layer (GCL),³^,⁶^–¹⁰ inner plexiform layer (IPL),⁴^,⁵^,¹¹ inner nuclear layer (INL),³^,⁴^,⁷^,¹² outer plexiform layer (OPL),³^,⁴^,⁷ outer nuclear layer (ONL),³^,⁴^,⁷^,¹³^–¹⁶ inner- and outer-segment layers (IS/OS),³^,⁴^,⁷ and retinal pigment epithelium to Bruch's membrane (RPE-BM).³^,⁴^,¹⁶^–²³

These studies challenge the pre-existing concept of AMD being a disease only of the outer retina. However, only very few studies to our knowledge have concurrently explored macular thicknesses across all individual retinal layers,³^,⁴^,⁷ thus limiting extrapolation of results in a holistic context. For example, numerous studies demonstrate reduced GCL thickness in the early stages of AMD,³^,⁶^–⁹^,²⁴^,²⁵ but lack of context about whether thickness changes are also evident in the surrounding retinal layers hampers conclusions regarding whether this change may represent postreceptoral degeneration or simply be an isolated epiphenomenon. Knowledge of inter-related, concurrent thickness changes in other individual retinal layers would significantly bolster the anatomical understanding of AMD.

Brandl et al.⁴ convincingly demonstrated that there were significant, concurrent thickness differences between AMD in its early stages and normal eyes in individual retinal layers of the macula, depending on location. This finding suggests that location-specific analysis of AMD may provide greater clinical insight into where and what retinal changes may occur. This study, however, only assessed a population above 70 years of age, which limits generalizability. Additionally, this study used the Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) sectors for location-specific analyses, which effectively confines retinal space to nine sectors (and combinations thereof) and assumes perfectly concentric anatomical topography. This is not ideal, considering known topographical variations in several layers,²⁶^–³⁰ particularly the RNFL, which originates nasally.³¹^,³² Comparison of ETDRS sectors between diseased and normal eyes may also introduce statistical bias when grouping data from the former according to topography of the latter.³³^–³⁶ Further study using more detailed spatial analyses, which accommodates for topographical variations of individual retinal layers of both diseased and normal eyes, could provide greater insight into iAMD anatomy, as well as directing attention toward specific retinal locations that may be useful for clinical diagnosis and monitoring of AMD.

Recently, we developed a method of location-specific OCT analysis using cluster analysis that provides greater spatial detail and less variability than the ETDRS sectors.³⁷ Spatial clustering involves assigning location-specific data into groups of statistical likeness. Use of this method has enabled the formation of OCT-derived topographical thickness maps for each individual retinal layer.³⁷ These maps are reflective of retinal neuronal distributions described via histological studies more so than the standard ETDRS sectors, which assume neuronal distribution to be concentric and symmetric around the fovea.³⁷ Application of the GCL topographical thickness map to iAMD eyes using cluster analysis has subsequently led to observation of unique location-specific patterns of thinned GCL toward the central macula and thickened GCL toward the peripheral macula when compared to normal eyes, both statistically significant and large in magnitude of effect.²⁴

Application of cluster analysis to individual retinal layers beyond the GCL has yet to be performed. We hypothesize that analyzing location-specific retinal thicknesses in each individual retinal layer of iAMD versus normal eyes using cluster analysis may likewise reveal unique location-specific patterns yet to be described with more limited spatial templates such as the ETDRS sectors. These spatial patterns of thickness differences can help to ameliorate our understanding of AMD anatomy and guide clinical diagnosis and monitoring of iAMD toward targeted retinal locations.

Methods

Study Population

Participant data were obtained through retrospective review of records from July 12, 2010, to January 13, 2020, of patients attending the Centre for Eye Health (CFEH) in Sydney, Australia. CFEH is a referral-only clinic providing advanced ocular diagnostic testing and disease management by specially trained optometrists and ophthalmologists.³⁸ All participants in this study provided prior written informed consent to use of their de-identified data for research in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Biomedical Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel of the University of New South Wales.

Inclusion criteria for normal eyes were defined as visual acuity better than 0.1 logMAR (20/25 Snellen) for participants younger than 60 years old or 0.2 logMAR (20/32 Snellen) for participants older than 60 years old; intraocular pressure <22 mm Hg in both eyes; and no evidence of macular-involving disease including but not limited to AMD, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma, nor any signs of significant macular preretinal abnormalities such as vitreo-macular traction, nor any significant macular intraretinal or subretinal deposits, fluid, pigment, or vascular changes.

Inclusion criteria for iAMD eyes were defined as age of 50 years or older, diagnosis of iAMD,³⁹ and no evidence of macular-involving disease or significant structural abnormalities as described above unrelated to iAMD. Classification of iAMD was based on fundus photography between at least two nonblinded investigators using a modified Beckman Initiative classification,³⁹ that is, participants 50 to 54 years of age are still considered to have iAMD if they followed all phenotypic criteria in the classification system (as done so in other notable studies).⁴⁰^–⁴³ Specifically, eyes were classified as iAMD based on the presence of large drusen (>125 µm) or pigmentary abnormalities with at least medium drusen (63–125 µm), without evidence of late AMD signs such as neovascularization or geographic atrophy. No eyes had reticular pseudodrusen. Scanning laser ophthalmoscopy photography and OCT were used to confirm non-late AMD classification and exclude eyes with other posterior ocular disease.

Propensity-Score Matching

Selection of the included normal and iAMD eyes were performed via propensity-score matching using multivariable logistic regression based on age, sex, and spherical equivalent refraction. Rather than exact matching, which can lead to larger bias due to individuals being unmatched in a limited sample pool,⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ potential predictor covariables were balanced between groups via propensity-score matching.⁴⁶^–⁴⁹ IAMD eyes were propensity-score matched with normal eyes using fuzzy matching without replacement.⁵⁰^,⁵¹ Iterative random draws were performed with increasing match tolerance until all iAMD eyes were matched with normal eyes. This resulted in relatively balanced propensity-scores (logistic regression predicted probabilities) of 0.46 ± 0.02 (mean ± SEM) and 0.42 ± 0.02, respectively, and propensity-score match tolerance of 0.2.⁵²

Image Acquisition and Retinal Layer Segmentation

OCT macular cube scans, covering an area of 8600 µm × 7167 µm or 30° × 25° across 61 B-scans, were acquired with Spectralis SD-OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) as previously described.³⁷^,⁵³^,⁵⁴ In the presence of multiple scans per participant, the earliest scan meeting inclusion criteria without significant artefacts and with signal strength above 15dB were selected. Scans were corrected for ocular tilt and automatic segmentation applied to each individual retinal layer using the HRA/Spectralis Viewing Module 6.9.5.0 (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany).

Segmentation for the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, OPL, ONL + Henle's fiber layer (ONL_+HFL), IS/OS, and RPE-BM for iAMD eyes were reviewed across all 61 B-scans and corrected where necessary by authors M.T. and V.K. according to previous studies.³⁷^,⁵³^,⁵⁴ One of two randomized blocks of all participants had their scans reviewed independently by M.T. and V.K. Upon completion, scans from the alternate block of participants were then independently reviewed by the other author. Any segmentation adjustments required from the second block review were achieved through discussion and consensus between M.T. and V.K.. All segmentations were agreed upon by M.T. and V.K. after one session of discussion. Manual correction of segmentation for iAMD eyes were performed in approximately 75% of all B-scans with approximately 10% of the contours in each B-scan undergoing minor corrections. Notably, segmentation boundaries were corrected to continue through large vasculature to mitigate their effect on inner retinal layer thicknesses (Figs. 1A, 1B, magenta, asterisk), Henle's fiber layer were corrected to be part of the ONL as commonly done so in OCT studies due to its inconsistent reflectivity (despite anatomically being part of the OPL; Figs. 1A, 1B, cyan, arrowhead), and mis-segmentation of the inner- and outer-RPE-BM boundaries surrounding drusen were corrected (Figs. 1A, 1B, cyan, dagger). Manual correction of segmentation by authors M.T. and V.K. were regarded as the “ground-truth” in concordance with other studies that have compared manual OCT segmentation versus automatic OCT segmentation protocols.⁵⁵^–⁵⁷ Manual correction of segmentation for iAMD eyes in this study were performed to the same standard as manual correction of segmentation for normal eyes, which were completed in previous studies.³⁷^,⁵³^,⁵⁴

Figure 1. — Retinal layers segmented within the HRA/Spectralis Viewing Module **(A)** automatically and with **(B)** manual correction. Note the manual correction of segmentation applied to the: distortion surrounding large vasculature (*magenta, asterisk*); ambiguity at Henle's fiber layer (*cyan, arrowhead*); and mis-segmentation surrounding drusen (*cyan, dagger*). The boundaries of each individual retinal layer are displayed in the *yellow* box.

Data Extraction

An 8 × 8 grid (total 6880µm × 6880µm or 24° × 24° area) centered on the fovea was placed over macular cube scans (8600 µm × 7167µm or 30° × 25° area). Each grid was 0.74 mm² in size (approximately 860 µm × 860 µm or 3° × 3° area). Individual retinal layer thicknesses for iAMD eyes were then extracted as 64 average measurements across the 8 × 8 grid as described from previous studies.³⁷^,⁵³^,⁵⁴ The 8 × 8 grid pattern were selected as it incorporated the highest preset number of B-scans (61 B-scans spaced 120µm apart) using the Spectralis SD-OCT without significant compromise in image quality.⁵⁸

Based on known retinal anatomy, inner retinal cellular displacement and a sharp decline in cellular densities toward the fovea produces highly variable GCL, IPL, INL, and OPL thicknesses. As such, the central four grids of these layers were excluded. The total number of grids analyzed for each layer was 64 in the RNFL, ONL_+HFL, IS/OS, and RPE-BM, and 60 in the GCL, IPL, INL, and OPL.

Global Analysis

Global analyses were performed between the total 6880 µm × 6880 µm or 24° × 24° area mean thickness of iAMD versus normal eyes in each individual retinal layer, expressed as mean difference ± SEM in micrometers and as a percentage to account for varying layer thicknesses. To confirm results, multi-variable linear regression including age, sex, spherical equivalent refraction, and AMD status (i.e., iAMD or normal eye) against mean thickness was also performed in each individual retinal layer. Multi-variable linear regression was then repeated using the simplified AREDS severity score⁵⁹ instead of AMD status to explore potential dose-response relationships. That is, whether increased AMD severity was associated with greater magnitude of global thickness difference. Scores ranged from zero to two per eye, with one point assigned for the presence of either large drusen or pigmentary abnormalities, and two points assigned for the presence of both.

Location-Specific Analysis

Clusters were predefined as groups of data with statistical likeness, derived from normal OCT grid-wise thicknesses. Normal cluster patterns for each retinal layer formed meaningful, in vivo topographical thickness maps³⁷^,⁵³^,⁵⁴ (Fig. 2A), which corresponded to histological neuronal distributions more so than the standard ETDRS sectors, which assume concentricity and symmetry around the fovea.³⁷ To address the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) for iAMD data, which states that statistical bias may be introduced based on how data are spatially grouped,³⁴^,³⁵ we used two main methods for location-specific analyses: cluster_(normal) comparison and grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison.

Figure 2. — Schematic example of location-specific analyses using cluster_(normal) and grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparisons. **(A)** OCT normative topographical thickness maps for each individual retinal layer, whereby each cluster is represented by a distinct color and defines groups of location-specific data with statistical likeness. **(B)** Cluster_(normal) comparison was performed by comparing mean thickness within each cluster area of each individual retinal layer between iAMD versus normal eyes, expressed as mean difference ± SEM. **(C)** Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison was performed for further spatially detailed analysis, comparing individual grid-wise thicknesses of iAMD eyes to mean cluster thicknesses of normal eyes from the same 10-yearly age group and forming qualitative and quantitative difference plots from normal. Size scale and color scale at the *bottom right*. All images are in right eye format as demonstrated by location of the optic nerve.

First, cluster_(normal) comparison used a more traditional approach to address the MAUP by using spatial grouping that were meaningful and demonstrated inter-group separability and intra-group similarity,³³^,³⁴^,³⁶ that is, normal clusters.³⁷^,⁵³^,⁵⁴ The mean thickness of iAMD versus normal eyes in each cluster area of each individual retinal layer were expressed as mean difference ± SEM in µm and as a percentage (Fig. 2B). To determine a potential effect of eccentricity on mean differences between iAMD versus normal eyes, a linear regression slope was calculated between each individual retinal layer's mean difference values versus mean eccentricity (°) of each cluster, with exception of the RNFL.

Second, grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison further addressed the MAUP by using unmodifiable basic grouping of iAMD data,³⁴^,³⁶ that is, grids, and provided even greater spatial detail and measure of effect sizes (i.e., the strength of a relationship in practical terms).⁶⁰^–⁶² Individual grid-wise thicknesses of iAMD eyes were compared to corresponding mean cluster thicknesses of normal eyes from the same 10-yearly age group (Fig. 2C). For example, a 63-year-old participant with iAMD would have each grid-wise thickness compared with the 60- to 69-year-old normal group's corresponding mean cluster thicknesses. Qualitative and quantitative difference plots from normal were formed for each iAMD eye, represented in SD units to account for varying thicknesses across the macula in each retinal layer. Values of 1.96 SD were selected as scale endpoints to represent measurements outside the 95% distribution limits (top and bottom 2.5% of thickness values from normal).

To confirm results derived from comparison of propensity-score matched groups, multivariable linear regression including age, sex, spherical equivalent refraction, and AMD status against mean thickness was performed in each cluster in each individual retinal layer. Multivariable linear regression was repeated using the simplified AREDS severity score⁵⁹ instead of AMD status to explore potential location-specific dose-response relationships.

Interlayer Correlation Analysis

To examine whether a rudimentary spatial model could be formed linking the retinal layers of iAMD eyes, we performed grid-to-grid correlational analysis between layers that showed spatial patterns of SD-from-normal thickness differences. To account for Henle's fibers’ displacement, the mean eccentricity (mm) of each grid (Supplementary Fig. S1A) alongside additional displacements to these eccentricities according to Drasdo et al.⁶³ (Supplementary Fig. S1B) were calculated. Comparisons between the outer and inner retinal grids were then adjusted (Supplementary Figs. S1C, S1D), that is, the central four grids of the outer retinal layers would be correlated against the paracentral four grids of the GCL and IPL along the same angular plane from the fovea.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism Version 8, SPSS Version 25, and Microsoft Excel Version 2012. Default significance was considered as P < 0.05. Single comparisons between continuous variables were performed using the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, depending on the relevant data assumptions. Multiple cluster_(normal) comparisons were not adjusted because each comparison was considered important⁶⁴ and instead contextualized alongside grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) and multivariable linear regression analyses. Single comparisons between categorical variables were performed using Fisher's exact test where available or χ² test. SD-from-normal were interpreted according to Cohen's effect sizes, that is, ≥0.2 = small, ≥0.5 = medium, and ≥0.8 = large.⁶² Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed with backward stepwise elimination, removing nonsignificant covariables from the regression model in a stepwise manner until all remaining variables were P < 0.1 to allow transparency of β values with borderline significance (0.05 ≤ P < 0.1).⁶⁵ Dichotomous values, that is, females and males, AMD status, and normal eye status, were encoded as 1 and 0, respectively. Correlational analyses were performed using Pearson's r.⁶² Multiple comparisons between correlations were performed using Brown-Forsythe and Welch ANOVA for unequal SDs or one-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons test for equal SDs.

Results

Participant Demographics

Eighty-four eyes with iAMD from 84 participants and 84 normal eyes from 84 participants were propensity-score matched and included in this study. There were no significant differences with means or distributions of age, sex, spherical equivalent refraction, or visual acuity between the two groups when compared in total or as 10-yearly age groups (Table 1). To explore potential dose-response relationships, further subdivision of the 84 iAMD eyes into simplified AREDS severity scores revealed 60 eyes with a score of one (presence of large drusen or pigmentary abnormalities) and 24 eyes with a score of two (presence of large drusen and pigmentary abnormalities).

Table 1.

Normal and iAMD Participant Demographics

	Normal	Intermediate AMD	P Value
Eyes, n
Total	84	84	—
50–59	30	17
60–69	33	42	0.08^*
70+	21	25
Age (years)
Total	64.09 ± 8.34	66.12 ± 7.12	0.09^†
50–59	55.7 ± 2.5	55.87 ± 3.09	0.84^‡
60–69	64.27 ± 2.97	65.38 ± 2.54	0.08^‡
70+	75.8 ± 3.98	74.33 ± 3.53	0.19^‡
Sex (females/males)
Total	51:33	51:33	1^§
50–59	23:7	13:4	>0.99^§
60–69	20:13	30:12	0.34^§
70+	8:13	8:17	0.76^§
Spherical equivalent refraction (diopters)
Total	0.52 ± 1.22	0.74 ± 1.8	0.36^†
50–59	0.23 ± 0.71	0.47 ± 0.53	0.23^‡
60–69	0.51 ± 1.53	0.32 ± 2	0.65^‡
70+	0.96 ± 1.17	1.62 ± 1.68	0.14^‡
VA (logMAR)
Total	0.05 ± 0.1	0.06 ± 0.1	0.71^†
50–59	0 ± 0.05	0 ± 0.03	0.73^‡
60–69	0.51 ± 1.53	0.32 ± 2	0.65^‡
70+	0.96 ± 1.17	1.62 ± 1.68	0.14^‡

Open in a new tab

VA, visual acuity (aided).

Continuous values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Categorical values are expressed as counts. Normal and iAMD participants’ total group and 10-yearly age group data are presented.

χ² test.

^†

Student's t-test.

^‡

Mann-Whitney U-test.

^§

Fisher's exact test.

Global Analysis in All Retinal Layers

To first determine whether there were differences in total macular thickness between iAMD and normal eyes, each individual retinal layer's total mean thickness (across the total 24° × 24° area) was compared between groups. The mean difference between iAMD and normal eyes showed a significantly thinned mean GCL (−5.03 ± 1.41 %, P < 0.0001), IPL (−5.93 ± 1.4 %, P < 0.0001), OPL (−8.36% ± 1.16%; P < 0.0001), and ONL_+HFL (−4.08% ± 1.53%; P < 0.01), whereas the RPE-BM were significantly thickened (11.55% ± 2.11%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in RNFL, INL, and IS/OS thicknesses between iAMD and normal eyes (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. — Global analysis in each individual retinal layer represented as total mean thickness difference (%) ± SEM of iAMD versus normal eyes. P values are noted above data points. Significant P values are denoted by: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Multivariable linear regression adjusted for all covariables in propensity score matching (age, sex, and spherical equivalent refraction) showed that AMD status was significantly associated with mean thickness in the GCL (β = 1.27 [0.47, 2.07]; P < 0.01), IPL (β = 1.29 [0.63, 1.96]; P < 0.0001), OPL (β = 2.2 [1.6, 2.79]; P < 0.0001), ONL_+HFL (β = 2 [0.32, 3.69]; P < 0.05), and RPE (β = −1.56 [−2.12, −1]; P < 0.0001; Supplementary Table S1). Repeated multivariable linear regression using a simplified AREDS severity score instead of AMD status confirmed the significant associations between AMD with GCL, IPL, OPL, ONL_+HFL, and RPE-BM global thicknesses (Supplementary Table S3). There was greater slope with increased AMD severity in some layers (notably the RPE-BM) suggesting potential dose-response relationships, although statistical comparisons between slopes of severity scores were precluded because of limited sample size.

Location-Specific Analysis in the RNFL and GCL

Location-specific analysis (for each 3° × 3° grid in the 24° × 24° area) was then performed in each individual retinal layer to assess spatial distribution of retinal thicknesses. In the RNFL, cluster_(normal) comparison was performed, whereby the mean thickness within each cluster area derived from the topographical thickness map (Fig. 4A) between iAMD and normal eyes were compared. This demonstrated thinned RNFL in most clusters for iAMD versus normal eyes (−2.61% ± 2.24% to −0.03% ± 2.37%; Fig. 4B). No differences in any cluster, however, reached statistical significance.

Figure 4. — Location-specific analysis in the RNFL and GCL. Previously developed topographical thickness maps in the **(A)** RNFL and **(D)** GCL are represented by spatial clusters of distinct colors, whereby clusters are in order of greatest to lowest mean thicknesses (color scale *below*). Central black shading in the GCL represents the excluded area containing the fovea. Cluster_(normal) comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes in the **(B)** RNFL and **(E)** GCL are displayed via mean difference (%) graphs ± SEM. Mean difference values in µm are included below the x-axis. P values are noted above data points. Significant P values are denoted by *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes in the **(C)** RNFL and **(F)** GCL are displayed via difference plots in SD units. Size scale and color scale at the *bottom right*. All images are in right eye format as demonstrated by location of the optic nerve in the underlying fundus photo.

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison was then performed, whereby grid-wise thicknesses of iAMD eyes were compared to corresponding mean cluster thicknesses of normal eyes from the same 10-yearly age group. The resultant difference plot confirmed a scattered distribution of thickness differences in the RNFL (Fig. 4C). Although some locations demonstrated a large magnitude of thinned and thickened RNFL (−2.5 SD- to 3 SD-from-normal), there was no distinguishable spatial pattern of differences.

In the GCL, cluster_(normal) comparison using the topographical thickness map (Fig. 4D) displayed thinned GCL in clusters 1 to 4 for iAMD versus normal eyes (−4.37% ± 1.63% to −3.74% ± 1.61%; P < 0.01 to P < 0.05; Fig. 4E). Differences in the peripheral macula clusters 5 and 6 did not reach statistical significance. Linear regression slope of GCL mean differences versus mean eccentricity (°) of each cluster were calculated. The linear regression was significant (β = 0.38 ± 0.09, P < 0.05; Supplementary Table S2), implying decreased magnitude of thinned GCL with increasing retinal eccentricity.

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison of the GCL of iAMD versus normal eyes confirmed up to a large magnitude of thinned GCL across most macula locations (up to −1.7 SD-from-normal). Some locations toward the peripheral macula, particularly inferiorly, demonstrated large magnitude of thickened GCL (up to 1.1 SD-from-normal; Fig. 4F).

Multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, and spherical equivalent refraction showed that AMD status were significantly associated with thicknesses in GCL clusters 1 to 5 (β = −3.51 [−5.01, −2.01] to −0.77 [−1.45, −0.09]; P < 0.0001 to P < 0.05), and no clusters in the RNFL (Supplementary Table S3). Repeated multivariable linear regression using a simplified AREDS severity score confirmed the associations between AMD GCL clusters 1 to 5 thicknesses (score 1 β = −3.09 [−4.73, −1.45] to −0.71 [−1.46, 0.04], P < 0.001 to P < 0.1; score 2 β = −4.54 [−6.78, −2.31] to −0.91 [−1.94, 0.11], P < 0.0001 to P < 0.1; Supplementary Table S3), and almost no RNFL clusters. There was consistently greater slope with increased AMD severity in GCL clusters 1 to 5, which may have indicated a dose-response relationship.

Location-Specific Analysis in the IPL, INL, and OPL

In the IPL, cluster_(normal) comparison indicated thinned IPL in clusters 1 to 5 in iAMD versus normal eyes (−4.83% ± 1.56% to −3.42% ± 1.56%; P < 0.01 to P < 0.05; Figs. 5A, 5B). Differences in the peripheral macular clusters 6 and 7 did not reach statistical significance. The linear regression slope of all IPL clusters was non-significant (β = 0.2 ± 0.08, P = 0.07; Supplementary Table S2), implying no significant effect of eccentricity on IPL thicknesses in iAMD eyes versus normal eyes.

Figure 5. — Location-specific analysis in the IPL, INL, and OPL. Presentation as in Figure 4. Previously developed topographical thickness maps are displayed for the **(A)** IPL, **(D)** INL, and **(G)** OPL. Cluster comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes are displayed for the **(B)** IPL, **(E)** INL, and **(H)** OPL. Significant P values are denoted by ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001. Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes are displayed for the **(C)** IPL, **(F)** INL, and **(I)** OPL.

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison confirmed thinned IPL across most locations with up to −1.3SD-from-normal (Fig. 5C). Consistent with the linear regression analysis, some locations toward the peripheral macula showed up to large magnitude of thickened IPL (up to 0.8 SD-from-normal).

Meanwhile, the INL cluster_(normal) comparison showed nonsignificant mean thickness differences of iAMD versus normal eyes in all clusters (−0.99% ± 1.33% to −0.2% ± 1.22%; Figs. 5D, 5E). The linear regression slope of all INL clusters was also nonsignificant (β = 0.05 ± 0.05; P = 0.37; Supplementary Table S2).

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes indicated a scattered distribution of up to medium magnitude of thinned INL (up to −1 SD-from-normal) and up to large magnitude of thickened INL (up to 1.3 SD-from-normal) forming no distinguishable spatial pattern (Fig. 5F).

In the OPL, cluster_(normal) comparison revealed thinned OPL in all clusters (−6.76% ± 2.47% to −3.16% ± 1.02%; P < 0.001 to P < 0.01). The linear regression slope of all OPL clusters was significant (β = 0.38 ± 0.03; P < 0.0001; Supplementary Table S2) and implied less magnitude of thinned OPL with increasing retinal eccentricity.

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison confirmed up to large magnitude of diffusely thinned OPL (up to −1.5 SD-from-normal; Fig. 5I), although the aforementioned slope describing less thinned OPL with increasing eccentricity was not appreciable likely because of intercluster differences in SD.

Multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, and spherical equivalent refraction showed that AMD status were significantly associated with thicknesses in all IPL clusters (β = −2.58 [−3.56, −1.61] to −0.74 [−1.36, −0.12]; P < 0.0001 to 0.05), all OPL clusters (β = −3.99 [−5.58, −2.4] to −1.26 [−1.69, −0.83], P < 0.0001), and no INL clusters (Supplementary Table S3). Repeated multivariable linear regression using a simplified AREDS severity score confirmed the associations between AMD with all IPL and OPL cluster thicknesses (scores 1 and 2 β = −4.4 [−6.79, −2.01] to −0.78 [−1.46, −0.09], P < 0.0001 to P < 0.05; Supplementary Table S3), and no INL clusters. However, there appeared to be no consistent patterns of dose-response relationships in these layers.

Location-Specific Analysis in the ONL_+HFL, IS/OS, and RPE-BM

The ONL_+HFL cluster_(normal) comparison displayed nonsignificant mean differences of iAMD versus normal eyes in the foveal cluster and clusters 1 and 2 (−1.6% ± 1.68% to 0.1% ± 1.68%). The ONL_+HFL was borderline thinned in peripheral macula cluster 3 (−3.03% ± 1.56%; P = 0.05) and significantly thinned in peripheral macula cluster 4 (−5.37% ± 1.71%; P < 0.01; Figs. 6A, 6B). Linear regression slope of all ONL_+HFL clusters was significant (β = −0.47 ± 0.14; P < 0.05; Supplementary Table S2), implying greater magnitude of thinned ONL_+HFL with increasing retinal eccentricity.

Figure 6. — Location-specific analysis in the ONL_+HFL, IS/OS, and RPE-BM. Presentation as in Figure 4. Previously developed topographical thickness maps are displayed for the **(A)** ONL_+HFL, **(D)** IS/OS, and **(G)** RPE-BM. Cluster_(normal) comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes are displayed for the **(B)** ONL_+HFL, **(E)** IS/OS, and **(H)** RPE-BM. Significant P values are denoted by: ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001. Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison of iAMD versus normal eyes are displayed for the **(C)** ONL_+HFL, **(F)** IS/OS, and **(I)** RPE-BM. F, foveal.

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison toward the central macula of iAMD eyes highlighted small magnitude of thinned ONL_+HFL (up to −0.3SD-from-normal) and up to medium magnitude of thickened ONL_+HFL (up to 0.5 SD-from-normal). At the peripheral macula, there were up to large magnitude of thinned ONL_+HFL (up to −1.6 SD-from-normal; Fig. 6C).

In the IS/OS, cluster_(normal) comparison exhibited no significant differences in any cluster for iAMD versus normal eyes (Figs. 6D, 6E). Linear regression of IS/OS mean differences versus mean eccentricity (°) of each cluster were also nonsignificant (β = 0.09 ± 0.01; P = 0.08; Supplementary Table S2).

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison demonstrated small magnitude of thinned IS/OS toward the central macula (up to −0.4SD-from-normal) and the up to large magnitude of thickened IS/OS toward the peripheral macula (up to 0.8 SD-from-normal; Fig. 6F) of iAMD versus normal eyes.

Finally in the RPE-BM, cluster_(normal) comparison showed significantly thickened RPE-BM centrally in the foveal cluster and clusters 1 to 3 (27.45% ± 7.48% to 6.11% ± 2.33%; P < 0.001 to P < 0.01; Figs. 6G, 6H). No differences in clusters 4 to 6 reached statistical significance. Linear regression of RPE-BM mean differences versus mean eccentricity (°) of each cluster was significant (β = −2.53 ± 0.39; P < 0.01; Supplementary Table S2), implying reduced thickening of the RPE-BM with increasing retinal eccentricity.

Grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison was consistent with the linear regression analysis, demonstrating a large magnitude of thickened RPE-BM toward the central macula (up to 7.6 SD-from-normal) and up to large magnitude of thinned RPE-BM toward the peripheral macula (up to −0.8 SD-from-normal; Fig. 6I) for iAMD eyes.

Multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, and spherical equivalent refraction showed that AMD status was associated with cluster thicknesses in ONL_+HFL clusters 3 and 4 (β = −2.35 [-4, −0.71] and −4.29 [−5.83, −2.75]; P < 0.01 and < 0.0001, respectively; Supplementary Table S3), and RPE-BM foveal cluster and clusters 1 to 4 (β = 9.43 [−6.29, 12.57] to 0.73 [−0.22, 1.24]; P < 0.0001 to P < 0.01). AMD status was not significantly associated with thicknesses in any IS/OS clusters. Repeated multivariable linear regression using a simplified AREDS severity score confirmed the associations between AMD with ONL_+HFL clusters 3 and 4 (scores 1 and 2 β = −4.57 [−6.26, −2.89] to −2.09 [−4.55, 0.38]; P < 0.0001 to P < 0.1), and RPE-BM foveal cluster and clusters 1-4 (score 1 β = 7.36 [3.99, 10.72] to 1.45 [0.61, 2.28]; P < 0.0001 to P < 0.001; score 2 β = 14.62 [10.01, 19.22] to 1.63 [0.89, 2.37]; P < 0.0001; Supplementary Table S3), and no IS/OS clusters. There was a consistently greater slope with increased AMD severity in RPE-BM foveal cluster and clusters 1 to 4, which may have indicated a dose-response relationship.

Correlating Interlayer Thickness Differences in iAMD

Finally, we examined whether a rudimentary spatial model could be formed linking the retinal layers of iAMD eyes that showed spatial patterns of SD-from-normal thickness differences. Grid-to-grid correlations between the RPE, ONL_+HFL, OPL, IPL, and GCL were performed after adjustment for Henle's fibers’ displacement regarding the GCL and IPL (Supplementary Fig. S1). Absolute correlations significantly varied between comparisons (Brown-Forsythe and Welch ANOVA; P < 0.0001; Table 2). As expected, the IPL and GCL had the greatest absolute correlation (|r| ± SEM; 0.58 ± 0.02, 61/64 grids significant), followed by the ONL_+HFL and OPL (0.24 ± 0.02, 29/60 grids significant). The ONL_+HFL provided the next greatest absolute correlations, albeit weak (mean |r| ± SEM; 0.19 ± 0.03; Tukey's multiple comparisons test P = 0.14 to P < 0.0001), whereas comparisons against the RPE-BM resulted in the poorest absolute correlations (0.09 ± 0; P = 0.72 to P < 0.0001).

Table 2.

Correlations Between Inter-Layer SD-From-Normal Thickness Differences

	RPE-BM	ONL_+HFL	OPL	IPL
ONL_+HFL	0.1 ± 0.01 (7/64)	—	—	—
OPL	0.09 ± 0.01 (3/60)	0.24 ± 0.02 (29/60)	—	—
IPL	0.08 ± 0.01 (1/64)	0.14 ± 0.01 (16/64)	0.12 ± 0.01 (6/60)	—
GCL	0.1 ± 0.01 (5/64)	0.19 ± 0.01 (26/64)	0.12 ± 0.01 (11/60)	0.58 ± 0.02 (61/64)
Mean	0.09 ± 0	0.19 ± 0.03	0.12 ± 0	—

Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as |r| mean ± SEM (and number of significant grid correlations). Note that the IPL and GCL have 64 grid correlations (rather than 60) after adjustment for displacements according to Drasdo et al.⁶³

To further investigate the poor correlations using the RPE-BM, we compared the coefficients of variation (CV) within each cluster of the RPE-BM between normal and iAMD eyes. CV were significantly greater in iAMD eyes (mean ± SD, 26.32% ± 16.13%; P < 0.001) compared to normal eyes (8.71 ± 0.61 %; Supplementary Table 4), suggesting highly variable levels of drusen load in the iAMD group.

Discussion

In this study, location-specific analyses revealed various patterns of thickness differences between iAMD and normal eyes not evident in global analyses. These difference patterns were unique to each individual retinal layer and exhibited statistical significance or large effect sizes in all individual retinal layers. Results were also mostly in concordance with other OCT studies that have described thickness differences between iAMD versus normal eyes individually in the GCL,³^,⁶^–¹⁰ IPL,⁴^,⁵^,¹¹ OPL,³^,⁴^,⁷ ONL_+HFL,³^,⁴^,⁷^,¹³^–¹⁶ IS/OS,³^,⁴^,⁷ or RPE-BM.³^,⁴^,¹⁶^–²³ Specifically, the RPE-BM was thickened centrally, although there was thinned outer (OPL, ONL_+HFL, and RPE-BM) and inner retina (GCL and IPL) with some eccentricity-based effects. There were significant but weak correlations between the outer and inner retinal layers. These results improve anatomical understanding of iAMD and could guide clinical diagnosis and monitoring of AMD by indicating specific retinal locations more subject to change.

Location-Specific Thickness Analysis Highlights iAMD Anatomy

Our results demonstrated concurrent thickness differences in the outer and inner retinal layers of iAMD eyes. Based on well-established anatomy of OCT reflectance profiles,⁶⁶ plausible anatomical explanations for the observed location-specific thickness patterns are provided. Specifically, locations of thinned GCL and IPL may represent reduced ganglion cell density in the GCL⁶⁷ and ganglion cell synapses in the IPL, whereas thinned ONL and OPL may represent reduced photoreceptor density in the ONL and synaptic terminals and proteins in the OPL.²^,⁶⁸^,⁶⁹ Thinned RPE-BM toward the peripheral macula may be characteristic of RPE atrophy.²^,⁷⁰^–⁷⁸ Alternatively, thickened GCL and IPL may reflect Müller cell hypertrophy⁷⁹ or neuronal proliferative and migratory changes as seen in outer retinal degeneration,⁶⁹^,⁸⁰^,⁸¹ thickened IS/OS could reflect photoreceptor segment disorganization or translocation,⁷¹^,⁸²^,⁸³ and centrally thickened RPE-BM would likely represent drusen.⁸⁴ Multiple cellular populations per OCT reflective layer can, however, confound interpretations of the underlying cellular structures affected in iAMD. Further work combining our results with other measures of retinal integrity could help strengthen interpretation of alterations in AMD retinal anatomy.

In the GCL, OPL, and ONL_+HFL, we also observed eccentricity-based effects that may have been consequential to the greater magnitude of thickened RPE-BM centrally. Greater magnitude of thickened retina toward the peripheral macular GCL and OPL could also reflect hypertrophic glial cells or neuronal migration as commonly seen in other outer retinal degenerative diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa.⁷⁹ In particular, Müller cell volumes (including their processes that extend approximately from the inner- to the external-limiting membrane) have been proposed to depend on available space.⁸⁵ Thus it is possible that the suggested thickening toward the peripheral macula in several individual retinal layers may reflect Müller cell hypertrophy at areas of greater Müller cell density.⁸⁶ Differences between central and peripheral Müller cell morphology and transcriptome⁸⁷^–⁸⁹ may also explain thickening toward the peripheral retina, although linkage of these findings in vitro to AMD eyes in vivo is yet to be shown. Alternatively, the ONL_+HFL showed greater magnitude of thinned retina toward the peripheral macula. Although this may reflect rod susceptibility in AMD,²⁷^,²⁸^,⁹⁰ as has been explored via structural²^,⁹¹^–⁹⁶ and functional⁹⁷^–¹⁰² measures, clinical OCT analyses cannot distinguish rod from cone photoreceptors without further augmentation such as adaptive-optics; further research is warranted.

Proposed Mechanisms for “Sparing” of the RNFL and INL

Location-specific analyses suggested sparing of the RNFL and INL in iAMD eyes compared to normal eyes in concordance with other OCT studies.³^–⁷ The macular RNFL being genuinely spared in the early stages of AMD may reflect similar finding of radial peripapillary capillary plexus sparing in iAMD eyes.¹⁰³ Zucchiatti et al.⁹ also established that the RNFL is spared in non-neovascular (early and late atrophic stage) AMD but significantly decreased in neovascular AMD. However, these findings are counterintuitive because implied loss of ganglion cells would also allude to concomitant loss of ganglion cell axons. Alternatively, RNFL sparing may be in part an artefact of high variability in macular RNFL thicknesses. Our grid_(iAMD)-to-cluster_(normal) comparison found locations with variable thickness profiles that were masked by an indistinguishable spatial pattern. Variability in macular RNFL thicknesses may have occurred because of the relatively sparse distribution of ganglion cell axons at the macula.³¹^,³²^,¹⁰⁴^–¹⁰⁷ Other reasons for the irregular pattern of RNFL thickness profiles may include subclinical vitreo-macular traction, astrocyte hypertrophy, or Müller cell process proliferation in iAMD.⁸⁰^,⁸¹ Further study is required to determine what cellular structures may be implicated in the RNFL of iAMD eyes, if any.

Sparing of the INL alternatively may be attributed to several factors. Histology studies have revealed a complex array of inner retinal remodeling events secondary to photoreceptor degeneration, including outgrowth of rod bipolar dendrites¹⁰⁸ and horizontal and amacrine cell neurites in hereditary retinal degeneration models¹⁰⁹; inner INL apoptosis (possibly representing amacrine cells) in non-neovascular AMD eyes⁷¹; and proliferation and upregulation of Müller cells in non-neovascular AMD eyes.⁶⁹^,⁸⁰^,⁸¹ These epiphenomena have been suggested to occur to maintain synaptic functionality with retracted photoreceptor axons in AMD and stimulate adjacent axonal regeneration.⁶⁹^,⁷¹^,⁸⁰^,⁸¹^,¹⁰⁸^,¹⁰⁹ Studies using rodent models of retinal degeneration have also shown reduced number and impaired functionality of bipolar, horizontal, and amacrine cells¹¹⁰^–¹¹³; increased synaptic activity of bipolar and amacrine cells¹¹⁴; bipolar and amacrine cell migration¹¹⁵^,¹¹⁶; and reorganization of Müller cell processes.¹¹⁵ Although translatability of results from animal studies to human eyes is equivocal, these models underscore the complex machinations possible within the INL that may explain its variable thickness profiles.

Postreceptoral Degeneration in AMD

An emerging pathophysiological theory in AMD suggests that AMD insults may arise from the outer retina or choroid and then propagate via anterograde degeneration within the inner retina. This process is known as anterograde trans-synaptic or postreceptoral degeneration in AMD.¹¹⁷^,¹¹⁸ Although this theory is well discussed in other OCT studies,³^,⁵^–⁷^,⁹^,¹⁰ we provided more holistic insight by examining the spatial relationship between retinal layers rather than focusing only on a few specific retinal layers.⁵^,⁶^,⁸^–¹⁰^,¹²^–¹⁵^,¹⁵^,¹⁷^–²³^,¹¹⁹^–¹³⁵ Correlations were poorest when compared against the RPE-BM, possibly because heterogeneous levels of drusen load in the iAMD group may have spatially unpredictable retinal effects. This unpredictability may be exacerbated by the nonlinear association between drusen load and AMD severity as seen with drusen regression.¹³⁶^,¹³⁷ Alternatively, correlations were greater, albeit weak compared against the ONL_+HFL. It is possible that the spatial areal unit of sampled thicknesses may have been too large and subsequently hampered correlational values.³³ This was particularly notable when considering that Henle's fibers’ displacements are much smaller in size than the 3° × 3° grids.⁶³ Nonetheless, there is still limited evidence to support the theory of postreceptoral degeneration in AMD and future works using location-specific and longitudinal designs could help clarify this theory.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study was related to the interpretation of OCT data. Although OCT provides an accessible, in vivo measure of retinal reflectance profiles, the cross-sectional location-specific retinal thickness patterns we describe do not specify which cellular structures are affected and only imply a possible cause-effect relationship with iAMD. In our repeated multivariable regression models, statistical comparisons between slopes of AREDS severity scores were precluded because of limited sample size. Future works using a larger AMD group with broader severities, and possibly more comprehensive grading such as the (non-simplified) AREDS severity scale,¹³⁸ could explore potential dose-response relationships such as the greater magnitude of thinned GCL and thickened RPE-BM with increased AMD severity that we described. Further extension of this work, including longitudinal analysis and direct comparison to other measures of retinal cellular integrity such as adaptive-optics OCT or visual function, could also significantly strengthen the putative cause-effect relationship.¹³⁹^,¹⁴⁰

Additionally, there were slight discrepancies between our results and those of Brandl et al.⁴ and Lamin et al.³; they found no significant differences in OPL thickness or volume in contrast to our observations of thinned OPL in iAMD eyes. These studies did not, however, clearly account for Henle's fiber layer during segmentation, which may explain the disparity. Our comparative areal units, that is, normal clusters, were also different to the above studies, which may have contributed to minor discrepancies in results. However, we ensured that our comparative areal units were meaningful and had proven intergroup separability and intragroup similarity³⁷ to mitigate any potential bias.³³^–³⁶

Conclusion

Location-specific analyses of each individual retinal layer revealed various patterns of thickness differences between iAMD and normal eyes not evident in global analyses. The central RPE-BM was thickened, whereas there was thinned outer (OPL, ONL_+HFL, and non-central RPE-BM) and inner retina (GCL and IPL) with some eccentricity-based effects. There were significant but weak correlations between the thinned outer and thinned inner retinal layers. These results improve anatomical understanding of iAMD and could guide clinical diagnosis and monitoring of AMD by indicating specific retinal locations more subject to change.

Supplementary Material

Supplement 1

iovs-62-13-13_s001.pdf^{(437.4KB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Gordon Doig (Centre for Eye Health, Sydney, Australia) for methodological advice.

Supported, in part, by research grants from the Rebecca Cooper Foundation and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC grant no. 1174385) awarded to L.N.S. M.T. and V.K. are supported by the Australian Research Training Program scholarship. Guide Dogs NSW/ACT provides support for the Centre for Eye Health (the clinic of recruitment), a top-up scholarship for V.K., and salary support for M.K. and L.N.S.

Disclosure: M. Trinh, None; V. Khou, None; M. Kalloniatis, None; L. Nivison-Smith, None

References

1. Ambati J, Ambati BK, Yoo SH, Ianchulev S, Adamis AP. Age-related macular degeneration: etiology, pathogenesis, and therapeutic strategies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003; 48: 257–293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Curcio CA, Medeiros NE, Millican CL. Photoreceptor loss in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996; 37: 1236–1249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Lamin A, Oakley JD, Dubis AM, Russakoff DB, Sivaprasad S. Changes in volume of various retinal layers over time in early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2019; 33: 428–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Brandl C, Brücklmayer C, Günther F, et al.. Retinal layer thicknesses in early age-related macular degeneration: results from the German AugUR Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 1581–1594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Muftuoglu IK, Ramkumar HL, Bartsch DU, Meshi A, Gaber R, Freeman WR. Quantitative analysis of the inner retinal layer thicknesses in age-related macular degeneration using corrected optical coherence tomography segmentation. Retina. 2018; 38: 1478–1484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Borrelli E, Abdelfattah NS, Uji A, Nittala MG, Boyer DS, Sadda SR. Postreceptor neuronal loss in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017; 181: 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Savastano MC, Minnella AM, Tamburrino A, Giovinco G, Ventre S, Falsini B. Differential vulnerability of retinal layers to early age-related macular degeneration: evidence by SD-OCT segmentation analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 560–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Yenice E, Şengün A, Soyugelen Demirok G, Turaçlı E. Ganglion cell complex thickness in nonexudative age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2015; 29: 1076–1080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Zucchiatti I, Parodi MB, Pierro L, et al.. Macular ganglion cell complex and retinal nerve fiber layer comparison in different stages of age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 160:2015;602–607.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Lee EK, Yu HG. Ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thicknesses in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: 3976–3983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Klein R, Meuer SM, Myers CE, et al.. Harmonizing the classification of age-related macular degeneration in the three continent AMD consortium. Ophthalmic Epidemiol . 2014; 21: 14–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Ebneter A, Jaggi D, Abegg M, Wolf S, Zinkernagel MS. Relationship between presumptive inner nuclear layer thickness and geographic atrophy progression in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016; 57: OCT299–OCT306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Schuman SG, Koreishi AF, Farsiu S, Jung SH, Izatt JA, Toth CA. Photoreceptor layer thinning over drusen in eyes with age-related macular degeneration imaged in vivo with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116: 488–496.e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Sadigh S, Luo X, Cideciyan AV, et al.. Drusen and photoreceptor abnormalities in African-Americans with intermediate non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Curr Eye Res. 2015; 40: 398–406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Rogala J, Zangerl B, Assaad N, Fletcher EL, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. In vivo quantification of retinal changes associated with drusen in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: 1689–1700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Sassmannshausen M, Zhou J, Pfau M, et al.. Longitudinal analysis of retinal thickness and retinal function in eyes with large drusen secondary to intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmol Retina. 2021; 5: 241–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Wu Z, Luu CD, Ayton LN, et al.. Optical coherence tomography–defined changes preceding the development of drusen-associated atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 2415–2422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Nivison-Smith L, Wang H, Assaad N, Kalloniatis M. Retinal thickness changes throughout the natural history of drusen in age-related macular degeneration. Optom Vis Sci. 2018; 95: 648–655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Sassmannshausen M, Steinberg JS, Fimmers R, et al.. Structure-function analysis in patients with intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018; 59: 1599–1608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Ferrara D, Silver RE, Louzada RN, Novais EA, Collins GK, Seddon JM. Optical coherence tomography features preceding the onset of advanced age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58: 3519–3529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Acton JH, Smith RT, Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Relationship between retinal layer thickness and the visual field in early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 7618–7624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Farsiu S, Chiu SJ, O'Connell RV, et al.. Quantitative classification of eyes with and without intermediate age-related macular degeneration using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 162–172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Wu Z, Cunefare D, Chiu E, et al.. Longitudinal associations between microstructural changes and microperimetry in the early stages of age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016; 57: 3714–3722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Trinh M, Tong J, Yoshioka N, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. Macula ganglion cell thickness changes display location-specific variation patterns in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020; 61: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Lee H-J, Kim M-S, Jo Y-J, Kim J-Y. Ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness in retinal diseases: repeatability study of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015; 160: 283–289.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol. 1990; 300: 5–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Lee SCS, Martin PR, Grünert U. Topography of neurons in the rod pathway of human retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 2848–2859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE, Hendrickson AE. Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol. 1990; 292: 497–523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Ahnelt PK, Schubert C, Kübber-Heiss A, Schiviz A, Anger E. Independent variation of retinal S and M cone photoreceptor topographies: a survey of four families of mammals. Vis Neurosci. 2006; 23: 429–435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Curcio CA, Allen KA, Sloan KR, et al.. Distribution and morphology of human cone photoreceptors stained with anti-blue opsin. J Comp Neurol. 1991; 312: 610–624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Blumenthal E, Parikh RS, Pe'er J, et al.. Retinal nerve fibre layer imaging compared with histological measurements in a human eye. Eye Lond Engl. 2007; 23: 171–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Frenkel S, Morgan JE, Blumenthal EZ. Histological measurement of retinal nerve fibre layer thickness. Eye. 2005; 19: 491–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Buzzelli M. Modifiable areal unit problem. Int Encycl Hum Geogr . 2020;169–173. [Google Scholar]
34. Jelinski DE, Wu J. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 1996; 11: 129–140. [Google Scholar]
35. Wong DWS. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). In: Janelle DG, Warf B, Hansen K, eds. WorldMinds: Geographical Perspectives on 100 Problems: Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Association of American Geographers 1904–2004. Netherlands: Springer; 2004: 571–575. [Google Scholar]
36. Dark SJ, Bram D. The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography. Prog Phys Geogr Earth Environ. 2007; 31: 471–479. [Google Scholar]
37. Trinh M, Khou V, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. Modelling normal age-related changes in individual retinal layers using location-specific OCT analysis. Sci Rep . 2021; 11: 558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Wang H, Kalloniatis M. Clinical outcomes of the Centre for Eye Health: an intra-professional optometry-led collaborative eye care clinic in Australia. Clin Exp Optom. 2021; 0: 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Ferris III FL, Wilkinson CP, Bird A, et al.. Clinical classification of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 844–851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Sleiman K, Veerappan M, Winter KP, et al.. Optical coherence tomography predictors of risk for progression to non-neovascular atrophic age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2017; 124: 1764–1777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Hallak JA, de Sisternes L, Osborne A, Yaspan B, Rubin DL, Leng T. Imaging, genetic, and demographic factors associated with conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol . 2019; 137: 738–744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Waldstein SM, Vogl WD, Bogunovic H, Sadeghipour A, Riedl S, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Characterization of drusen and hyperreflective foci as biomarkers for disease progression in age-related macular degeneration using artificial intelligence in optical coherence tomography. JAMA Ophthalmol . 2020; 138: 740–747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Guymer RH, Vogl WD, Bogunovic H, Sadeghipour A, Riedl S, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Proof of concept, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effect of simvastatin on the course of age-related macular degeneration. PloS One. 2013; 8: e83759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985; 39: 33–38. [Google Scholar]
45. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci Rev J Inst Math Stat. 2010; 25: 1–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011; 46: 399–424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Dehejia RH, Wahba S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2002; 84: 151–161. [Google Scholar]
48. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Matching on the estimated propensity score. Econometrica. 2016; 84: 781–807. [Google Scholar]
49. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv. 2008; 22: 31–72. [Google Scholar]
50. Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat. 1993; 2: 405–420. [Google Scholar]
51. Guo S, Fraser M, Chen Q. Propensity score analysis: recent debate and discussion. J Soc Work Res. 2020; 11: 463–482. [Google Scholar]
52. Lunt M. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 179: 226–235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Yoshioka N, Zangerl B, Nivison-Smith L, et al.. Pattern recognition analysis of age-related retinal ganglion cell signatures in the human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58: 3086–3099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Tong J, Phu J, Khuu SK, et al.. Development of a spatial model of age-related change in the macular ganglion cell layer to predict function from structural changes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019; 208: 166–177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Tian J, Varga B, Tatrai E, et al.. Performance evaluation of automated segmentation software on optical coherence tomography volume data. J Biophotonics. 2016; 9: 478–489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Dodo BI, Li Y, Eltayef K, Liu X. Automatic annotation of retinal layers in optical coherence tomography images. J Med Syst. 2019; 43: 336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Maloca PM, Lee AY, de Carvalho ER, et al.. Validation of automated artificial intelligence segmentation of optical coherence tomography images. PLOS ONE. 2019; 14: e0220063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Heidelberg Engineering GmbH. Spectralis Product Family User Manual Software Version 6.7. 2016.
59. Ferris FL, Davis MD, Clemons TE, et al.. A simplified severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 18. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123: 1570–1574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989; 27: S178–S189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 82: 128–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the Behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. [Google Scholar]
63. Drasdo N, Millican CL, Katholi CR, Curcio CA. The length of Henle fibers in the human retina and a model of ganglion receptive field density in the visual field. Vision Res . 2007; 47: 2901–2911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2014; 34: 502–508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Derksen S, Keselman HJ. Backward, forward and stepwise automated subset selection algorithms: frequency of obtaining authentic and noise variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1992; 45: 265–282. [Google Scholar]
66. Cuenca N, Ortuño-Lizarán I, Pinilla I. Cellular characterization of OCT and outer retinal bands using specific immunohistochemistry markers and clinical implications. Ophthalmology. 2018; 125: 407–422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Medeiros NE, Curcio CA. Preservation of Ganglion Cell Layer Neurons in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001; 42: 795–803. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Johnson PT, Brown MN, Pulliam BC, Anderson DH, Johnson LV. Synaptic pathology, altered gene expression, and degeneration in photoreceptors impacted by drusen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46: 4788–4795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Johnson PT, Lewis GP, Talaga KC, et al.. Drusen-associated degeneration in the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44: 4481–4488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Sarks JP, Sarks SH, Killingsworth MC. Evolution of soft drusen in age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 1994; 8: 269–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Dunaief JL, Dentchev T, Ying G-S, Milam AH. The role of apoptosis in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120: 1435–1442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Xu GZ, Li WW, Tso MO. Apoptosis in human retinal degenerations. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 94: 411–431. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Golestaneh N, Chu Y, Xiao Y-Y, Stoleru GL, Theos AC. Dysfunctional autophagy in RPE, a contributing factor in age-related macular degeneration. Cell Death Dis . 2018; 8: e2537–e2537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Mitter SK, Song C, Qi X, et al.. Dysregulated autophagy in the RPE is associated with increased susceptibility to oxidative stress and AMD. Autophagy. 2014; 10: 1989–2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Inana G, Murat C, An W, Yao X, Harris IR, Cao J. RPE phagocytic function declines in age-related macular degeneration and is rescued by human umbilical tissue derived cells. J Transl Med. 2018; 16: 63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. De S, Rabin DM, Salero E, Lederman PL, Temple S, Stern JH. Human retinal pigment epithelium cell changes and expression of αB-crystallin: a biomarker for retinal pigment epithelium cell change in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 125: 641–645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Bressler NM, Munoz B, Maguire MG, et al.. Five-year incidence and disappearance of drusen and retinal pigment epithelial abnormalities. Waterman study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995; 113: 301–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Green WR, McDonnell PJ, Yeo JH. Pathologic features of senile macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 1985; 92: 615–627. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Chua J, Nivison‐Smith L, Fletcher EL, Trenholm S, Awatramani GB, Kalloniatis M. Early remodeling of Müller cells in the rd/rd mouse model of retinal dystrophy: Müller cells in rd mouse retina. J Comp Neurol. 2013; 521: 2439–2453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Madigan MC, Penfold PL, Provis JM, Balind TK, Billson FA. Intermediate filament expression in human retinal macroglia. Histopathologic changes associated with age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 1994; 14: 65–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Wu KHC, Madigan MC, Billson FA, Penfold PL. Differential expression of GFAP in early v late AMD: a quantitative analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87: 1159–1166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Shelley EJ, Madigan MC, Natoli R, Penfold PL, Provis JM. Cone degeneration in aging and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009; 127: 483–492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Pow DV, Sullivan RKP. Nuclear kinesis, neurite sprouting and abnormal axonal projections of cone photoreceptors in the aged and AMD-afflicted human retina. Exp Eye Res. 2007; 84: 850–857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Bonilha VL. Age and disease-related structural changes in the retinal pigment epithelium. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2008; 2: 413–424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Chao TI, Grosche J, Biedermann B, et al.. Comparative studies on mammalian Müller (retinal glial) cells. J Neurocytol. 1997; 26: 439–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Distler C, Dreher Z. Glia cells of the monkey retina—II. Müller cells. Vision Res . 1996; 36: 2381–2394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Zhang T, Zhu L, Madigan MC, et al.. Human macular Müller cells rely more on serine biosynthesis to combat oxidative stress than those from the periphery. Elife. 2019; 8: e43598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Too LK, Gracie G, Hasic E, Iwakura JH, Cherepanoff S. Adult human retinal Müller glia display distinct peripheral and macular expression of CD117 and CD44 stem cell-associated proteins. Acta Histochem. 2017; 119: 142–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Bringmann A, Syrbe S, Görner K, et al.. The primate fovea: structure, function and development. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018; 66:. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90. Ahnelt PK. The photoreceptor mosaic. Eye. 1998; 12(Pt 3b): 531–540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Godara P, Siebe C, Rha J, Michaelides M, Carroll J. Assessing the photoreceptor mosaic over drusen using adaptive optics and SD-OCT. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2010; 41(Suppl): S104–S108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Mrejen S, Sato T, Curcio CA, Spaide RF. Assessing the cone photoreceptor mosaic in eyes with pseudodrusen and soft drusen in vivo using adaptive optics imaging. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 545–551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Reumueller A, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Salas M, et al.. Three-dimensional adaptive optics–assisted visualization of photoreceptors in healthy and pathologically aged eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 1144–1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Querques G, Kamami-Levy C, Blanco-Garavito R, et al.. Appearance of medium–large drusen and reticular pseudodrusen on adaptive optics in age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98: 1522–1527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Zayit-Soudry S, Duncan JL, Syed R, Menghini M, Roorda AJ. Cone structure imaged with adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in eyes with nonneovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 7498–7509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Boretsky A, Khan F, Burnett G, et al.. In vivo imaging of photoreceptor disruption associated with age-related macular degeneration: a pilot study. Lasers Surg Med. 2012; 44: 603–610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Flamendorf J, Agrón E, Wong WT, et al.. Impairments in dark adaptation are associated with age-related macular degeneration severity and reticular pseudodrusen. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122: 2053–2062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Owsley C, McGwin G, Jackson GR, Kallies K, Clark M. Cone- and rod-mediated dark adaptation impairment in age-related maculopathy. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114: 1728–1735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Owsley C, Jackson GR, Cideciyan AV, et al.. Psychophysical evidence for rod vulnerability in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41: 267–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Owsley C, McGwin G Jr, Clark ME, et al.. Delayed rod-mediated dark adaptation is a functional biomarker for incident early age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123: 344–351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Jackson GR, Scott IU, Kim IK, Quillen DA, Iannaccone A, Edwards JG. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of dark adaptometry for detection of age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 1427–1431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Nittala MG, Velaga SB, Hariri A, et al.. Retinal sensitivity using microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration in an Amish population. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019; 50: e236–e241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Trinh M, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. Radial peripapillary capillary plexus sparing and underlying retinal vascular impairment in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104. Cohen MJ, Kaliner E, Frenkel S, Kogan M, Miron H, Blumenthal EZ. Morphometric analysis of human peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49: 941–944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105. Blumenthal EZ. Quantifying retinal nerve fiber layer thickness histologically: a novel approach to sectioning of the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 1404–1409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. Dichtl A, Jonas JB, Naumann GO. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in human eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999; 237: 474–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107. Varma R, Skaf M, Barron E. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in normal human eyes. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103: 2114–2119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108. Sullivan RKP, WoldeMussie E, Pow DV. Dendritic and synaptic plasticity of neurons in the human age-related macular degeneration retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 2782–2791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109. Fariss RN, Li Z-Y, Milam AH. Abnormalities in rod photoreceptors, amacrine cells, and horizontal cells in human retinas with retinitis pigmentosa. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129: 215–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110. Marc RE, Jones BW, Anderson JR, et al.. Neural reprogramming in retinal degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 3364–3371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111. Varela C, Igartua I, De la Rosa E, de la Villa P. Functional modifications in rod bipolar cells in a mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa. Vision Res . 2003; 43: 879–885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112. Strettoi E, Pignatelli V. Modifications of retinal neurons in a mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000; 97: 11020–11025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Machida S, Raz-Prag D, Fariss RN, Sieving PA, Bush RA. Photopic ERG negative response from amacrine cell signaling in RCS rat retinal degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49: 442–452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Dagar S, Nagar S, Goel M, Cherukuri P, Dhingra NK. Loss of photoreceptors results in upregulation of synaptic proteins in bipolar cells and amacrine cells. LoS ONE. 2014; 9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Sullivan R, Penfold P, Pow DV. Neuronal migration and glial remodeling in degenerating retinas of aged rats and in nonneovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44: 856–865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Marc RE, Jones BW, Watt CB, Vazquez-Chona F, Vaughan DK, Organisciak DT. Extreme retinal remodeling triggered by light damage: implications for age related macular degeneration. Mol Vis. 2008; 14: 782–805. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117. Feigl B, Brown B, Lovie-Kitchin J, Swann P. Functional loss in early age-related maculopathy: the ischaemia postreceptoral hypothesis. Eye. 2007; 21: 689–696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118. Panneman EL, Coric D, Tran LMD, de Vries-Knoppert WAEJ, Petzold A. Progression of anterograde trans-synaptic degeneration in the human retina is modulated by axonal convergence and divergence. Neuro-Ophthalmol . 2019; 43: 382–390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119. Iwama D, Tsujikawa A, Ojima Y, et al.. Relationship between retinal sensitivity and morphologic changes in eyes with confluent soft drusen. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010; 38: 483–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Wu Z, Ayton LN, Luu CD, Guymer RH. Relationship between retinal microstructures on optical coherence tomography and microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 1445–1452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121. Hartmann KI, Gomez ML, Bartsch D-UG, Schuster AK, Freeman WR. Effect of change in drusen evolution on photoreceptor inner segment/outer segment junction. Retina. 2012; 32: 1492–1499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122. Hartmann KI, Bartsch DU, Cheng L, et al.. Scanning laser ophthalmoscope imaging stabilized microperimetry in dry age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2011; 31: 1323–1331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. Querques G, Canouï-Poitrine F, Coscas F, et al.. Analysis of progression of reticular pseudodrusen by spectral domain–optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 1264–1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Querques G, Querques L, Martinelli D, et al.. Pathologic insights from integrated imaging of reticular pseudodrusen in age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2011; 31: 518–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125. Zhang Y, Wang X, Rivero EB, et al.. Photoreceptor perturbation around subretinal drusenoid deposits as revealed by adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158: 584–596.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126. Spaide RF. Outer retinal atrophy after regression of subretinal drusenoid deposits as a newly recognized form of late Age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2013; 33: 1800–1808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127. Landa G, Su E, Garcia PMT, Seiple WH, Rosen RB. Inner segment-outer segment junctional layer integrity and corresponding retinal sensitivity in dry and wet forms of age-related macular degeneration. Retina Phila Pa. 2011; 31: 364–370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128. Yi K, Mujat M, Park BH, et al.. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography for quantitative evaluation of drusen and associated structural changes in non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 176–181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
129. Pappuru RR, Ouyang Y, Nittala MG, et al.. Relationship between outer retinal thickness substructures and visual acuity in eyes with dry age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52: 6743–6748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Ko TH, Fujimoto JG, Schuman JS, et al.. Comparison of ultrahigh- and standard-resolution optical coherence tomography for imaging macular pathology. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112: 1922.e1–1922.e15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Ramon C, Cardona G, Biarnés M, Ferraro LL, Monés J. Longitudinal changes in outer nuclear layer thickness in soft drusen and reticular pseudodrusen. Clin Exp Optom. 2019; 102: 601–610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Sadigh S, Cideciyan AV, Sumaroka A, et al.. Abnormal thickening as well as thinning of the photoreceptor layer in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 1603–1612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
133. Gorczynska I, Srinivasan VJ, Vuong LN, et al.. Projection OCT fundus imaging for visualising outer retinal pathology in non-exudative age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 603–609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
134. Shin I-H, Lee W-H, Lee J-J, Jo Y-J, Kim J-Y. Thickness of the macula, retinal nerve fibre layer, and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer in age-related macular degeneration: The Repeatability Study of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography. Retina. 2018; 38: 253–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
135. Camacho P, Dutra-Medeiros M, Páris L. Ganglion cell complex in early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration: evidence by SD-OCT manual segmentation. Ophthalmologica. 2017; 238: 31–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
136. Schlanitz FG, Baumann B, Kundi M, et al.. Drusen volume development over time and its relevance to the course of age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017; 101: 198–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
137. Toy BC, Krishnadev N, Indaram M, et al.. Drusen regression is associated with local changes in fundus autofluorescence in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 156: 532–542.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
138. Davis MD, Gangnon RE, Lee LY, et al.. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 17. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123: 1484–1498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
139. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al.. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311–1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
140. Rutter M. Beyond longitudinal data: causes, consequences, changes, and continuity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994; 62: 928–940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1

iovs-62-13-13_s001.pdf^{(437.4KB, pdf)}

[bib1] 1. Ambati J, Ambati BK, Yoo SH, Ianchulev S, Adamis AP. Age-related macular degeneration: etiology, pathogenesis, and therapeutic strategies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003; 48: 257–293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib2] 2. Curcio CA, Medeiros NE, Millican CL. Photoreceptor loss in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996; 37: 1236–1249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib3] 3. Lamin A, Oakley JD, Dubis AM, Russakoff DB, Sivaprasad S. Changes in volume of various retinal layers over time in early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2019; 33: 428–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib4] 4. Brandl C, Brücklmayer C, Günther F, et al.. Retinal layer thicknesses in early age-related macular degeneration: results from the German AugUR Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 1581–1594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib5] 5. Muftuoglu IK, Ramkumar HL, Bartsch DU, Meshi A, Gaber R, Freeman WR. Quantitative analysis of the inner retinal layer thicknesses in age-related macular degeneration using corrected optical coherence tomography segmentation. Retina. 2018; 38: 1478–1484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib6] 6. Borrelli E, Abdelfattah NS, Uji A, Nittala MG, Boyer DS, Sadda SR. Postreceptor neuronal loss in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017; 181: 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib7] 7. Savastano MC, Minnella AM, Tamburrino A, Giovinco G, Ventre S, Falsini B. Differential vulnerability of retinal layers to early age-related macular degeneration: evidence by SD-OCT segmentation analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 560–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib8] 8. Yenice E, Şengün A, Soyugelen Demirok G, Turaçlı E. Ganglion cell complex thickness in nonexudative age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2015; 29: 1076–1080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib9] 9. Zucchiatti I, Parodi MB, Pierro L, et al.. Macular ganglion cell complex and retinal nerve fiber layer comparison in different stages of age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 160:2015;602–607.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib10] 10. Lee EK, Yu HG. Ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thicknesses in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: 3976–3983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib11] 11. Klein R, Meuer SM, Myers CE, et al.. Harmonizing the classification of age-related macular degeneration in the three continent AMD consortium. Ophthalmic Epidemiol . 2014; 21: 14–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib12] 12. Ebneter A, Jaggi D, Abegg M, Wolf S, Zinkernagel MS. Relationship between presumptive inner nuclear layer thickness and geographic atrophy progression in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016; 57: OCT299–OCT306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib13] 13. Schuman SG, Koreishi AF, Farsiu S, Jung SH, Izatt JA, Toth CA. Photoreceptor layer thinning over drusen in eyes with age-related macular degeneration imaged in vivo with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116: 488–496.e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib14] 14. Sadigh S, Luo X, Cideciyan AV, et al.. Drusen and photoreceptor abnormalities in African-Americans with intermediate non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Curr Eye Res. 2015; 40: 398–406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib15] 15. Rogala J, Zangerl B, Assaad N, Fletcher EL, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. In vivo quantification of retinal changes associated with drusen in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: 1689–1700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib16] 16. Sassmannshausen M, Zhou J, Pfau M, et al.. Longitudinal analysis of retinal thickness and retinal function in eyes with large drusen secondary to intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmol Retina. 2021; 5: 241–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib17] 17. Wu Z, Luu CD, Ayton LN, et al.. Optical coherence tomography–defined changes preceding the development of drusen-associated atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 2415–2422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib18] 18. Nivison-Smith L, Wang H, Assaad N, Kalloniatis M. Retinal thickness changes throughout the natural history of drusen in age-related macular degeneration. Optom Vis Sci. 2018; 95: 648–655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib19] 19. Sassmannshausen M, Steinberg JS, Fimmers R, et al.. Structure-function analysis in patients with intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018; 59: 1599–1608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib20] 20. Ferrara D, Silver RE, Louzada RN, Novais EA, Collins GK, Seddon JM. Optical coherence tomography features preceding the onset of advanced age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58: 3519–3529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib21] 21. Acton JH, Smith RT, Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Relationship between retinal layer thickness and the visual field in early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 7618–7624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib22] 22. Farsiu S, Chiu SJ, O'Connell RV, et al.. Quantitative classification of eyes with and without intermediate age-related macular degeneration using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 162–172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib23] 23. Wu Z, Cunefare D, Chiu E, et al.. Longitudinal associations between microstructural changes and microperimetry in the early stages of age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016; 57: 3714–3722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib24] 24. Trinh M, Tong J, Yoshioka N, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. Macula ganglion cell thickness changes display location-specific variation patterns in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020; 61: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib25] 25. Lee H-J, Kim M-S, Jo Y-J, Kim J-Y. Ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness in retinal diseases: repeatability study of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015; 160: 283–289.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib26] 26. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol. 1990; 300: 5–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib27] 27. Lee SCS, Martin PR, Grünert U. Topography of neurons in the rod pathway of human retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 2848–2859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib28] 28. Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE, Hendrickson AE. Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol. 1990; 292: 497–523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib29] 29. Ahnelt PK, Schubert C, Kübber-Heiss A, Schiviz A, Anger E. Independent variation of retinal S and M cone photoreceptor topographies: a survey of four families of mammals. Vis Neurosci. 2006; 23: 429–435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib30] 30. Curcio CA, Allen KA, Sloan KR, et al.. Distribution and morphology of human cone photoreceptors stained with anti-blue opsin. J Comp Neurol. 1991; 312: 610–624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib31] 31. Blumenthal E, Parikh RS, Pe'er J, et al.. Retinal nerve fibre layer imaging compared with histological measurements in a human eye. Eye Lond Engl. 2007; 23: 171–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib32] 32. Frenkel S, Morgan JE, Blumenthal EZ. Histological measurement of retinal nerve fibre layer thickness. Eye. 2005; 19: 491–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib33] 33. Buzzelli M. Modifiable areal unit problem. Int Encycl Hum Geogr . 2020;169–173. [Google Scholar]

[bib34] 34. Jelinski DE, Wu J. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 1996; 11: 129–140. [Google Scholar]

[bib35] 35. Wong DWS. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). In: Janelle DG, Warf B, Hansen K, eds. WorldMinds: Geographical Perspectives on 100 Problems: Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Association of American Geographers 1904–2004. Netherlands: Springer; 2004: 571–575. [Google Scholar]

[bib36] 36. Dark SJ, Bram D. The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography. Prog Phys Geogr Earth Environ. 2007; 31: 471–479. [Google Scholar]

[bib37] 37. Trinh M, Khou V, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. Modelling normal age-related changes in individual retinal layers using location-specific OCT analysis. Sci Rep . 2021; 11: 558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib38] 38. Wang H, Kalloniatis M. Clinical outcomes of the Centre for Eye Health: an intra-professional optometry-led collaborative eye care clinic in Australia. Clin Exp Optom. 2021; 0: 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib39] 39. Ferris III FL, Wilkinson CP, Bird A, et al.. Clinical classification of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 844–851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib40] 40. Sleiman K, Veerappan M, Winter KP, et al.. Optical coherence tomography predictors of risk for progression to non-neovascular atrophic age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2017; 124: 1764–1777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib41] 41. Hallak JA, de Sisternes L, Osborne A, Yaspan B, Rubin DL, Leng T. Imaging, genetic, and demographic factors associated with conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol . 2019; 137: 738–744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib42] 42. Waldstein SM, Vogl WD, Bogunovic H, Sadeghipour A, Riedl S, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Characterization of drusen and hyperreflective foci as biomarkers for disease progression in age-related macular degeneration using artificial intelligence in optical coherence tomography. JAMA Ophthalmol . 2020; 138: 740–747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib43] 43. Guymer RH, Vogl WD, Bogunovic H, Sadeghipour A, Riedl S, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Proof of concept, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effect of simvastatin on the course of age-related macular degeneration. PloS One. 2013; 8: e83759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib44] 44. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985; 39: 33–38. [Google Scholar]

[bib45] 45. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci Rev J Inst Math Stat. 2010; 25: 1–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib46] 46. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011; 46: 399–424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib47] 47. Dehejia RH, Wahba S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2002; 84: 151–161. [Google Scholar]

[bib48] 48. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Matching on the estimated propensity score. Econometrica. 2016; 84: 781–807. [Google Scholar]

[bib49] 49. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv. 2008; 22: 31–72. [Google Scholar]

[bib50] 50. Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat. 1993; 2: 405–420. [Google Scholar]

[bib51] 51. Guo S, Fraser M, Chen Q. Propensity score analysis: recent debate and discussion. J Soc Work Res. 2020; 11: 463–482. [Google Scholar]

[bib52] 52. Lunt M. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 179: 226–235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib53] 53. Yoshioka N, Zangerl B, Nivison-Smith L, et al.. Pattern recognition analysis of age-related retinal ganglion cell signatures in the human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58: 3086–3099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib54] 54. Tong J, Phu J, Khuu SK, et al.. Development of a spatial model of age-related change in the macular ganglion cell layer to predict function from structural changes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019; 208: 166–177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib55] 55. Tian J, Varga B, Tatrai E, et al.. Performance evaluation of automated segmentation software on optical coherence tomography volume data. J Biophotonics. 2016; 9: 478–489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib56] 56. Dodo BI, Li Y, Eltayef K, Liu X. Automatic annotation of retinal layers in optical coherence tomography images. J Med Syst. 2019; 43: 336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib57] 57. Maloca PM, Lee AY, de Carvalho ER, et al.. Validation of automated artificial intelligence segmentation of optical coherence tomography images. PLOS ONE. 2019; 14: e0220063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib58] 58. Heidelberg Engineering GmbH. Spectralis Product Family User Manual Software Version 6.7. 2016.

[bib59] 59. Ferris FL, Davis MD, Clemons TE, et al.. A simplified severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 18. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123: 1570–1574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib60] 60. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989; 27: S178–S189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib61] 61. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 82: 128–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib62] 62. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the Behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. [Google Scholar]

[bib63] 63. Drasdo N, Millican CL, Katholi CR, Curcio CA. The length of Henle fibers in the human retina and a model of ganglion receptive field density in the visual field. Vision Res . 2007; 47: 2901–2911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib64] 64. Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2014; 34: 502–508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib65] 65. Derksen S, Keselman HJ. Backward, forward and stepwise automated subset selection algorithms: frequency of obtaining authentic and noise variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1992; 45: 265–282. [Google Scholar]

[bib66] 66. Cuenca N, Ortuño-Lizarán I, Pinilla I. Cellular characterization of OCT and outer retinal bands using specific immunohistochemistry markers and clinical implications. Ophthalmology. 2018; 125: 407–422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib67] 67. Medeiros NE, Curcio CA. Preservation of Ganglion Cell Layer Neurons in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001; 42: 795–803. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib68] 68. Johnson PT, Brown MN, Pulliam BC, Anderson DH, Johnson LV. Synaptic pathology, altered gene expression, and degeneration in photoreceptors impacted by drusen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46: 4788–4795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib69] 69. Johnson PT, Lewis GP, Talaga KC, et al.. Drusen-associated degeneration in the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44: 4481–4488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib70] 70. Sarks JP, Sarks SH, Killingsworth MC. Evolution of soft drusen in age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 1994; 8: 269–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib71] 71. Dunaief JL, Dentchev T, Ying G-S, Milam AH. The role of apoptosis in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120: 1435–1442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib72] 72. Xu GZ, Li WW, Tso MO. Apoptosis in human retinal degenerations. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 94: 411–431. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib73] 73. Golestaneh N, Chu Y, Xiao Y-Y, Stoleru GL, Theos AC. Dysfunctional autophagy in RPE, a contributing factor in age-related macular degeneration. Cell Death Dis . 2018; 8: e2537–e2537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib74] 74. Mitter SK, Song C, Qi X, et al.. Dysregulated autophagy in the RPE is associated with increased susceptibility to oxidative stress and AMD. Autophagy. 2014; 10: 1989–2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib75] 75. Inana G, Murat C, An W, Yao X, Harris IR, Cao J. RPE phagocytic function declines in age-related macular degeneration and is rescued by human umbilical tissue derived cells. J Transl Med. 2018; 16: 63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib76] 76. De S, Rabin DM, Salero E, Lederman PL, Temple S, Stern JH. Human retinal pigment epithelium cell changes and expression of αB-crystallin: a biomarker for retinal pigment epithelium cell change in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 125: 641–645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib77] 77. Bressler NM, Munoz B, Maguire MG, et al.. Five-year incidence and disappearance of drusen and retinal pigment epithelial abnormalities. Waterman study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995; 113: 301–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib78] 78. Green WR, McDonnell PJ, Yeo JH. Pathologic features of senile macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 1985; 92: 615–627. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib79] 79. Chua J, Nivison‐Smith L, Fletcher EL, Trenholm S, Awatramani GB, Kalloniatis M. Early remodeling of Müller cells in the rd/rd mouse model of retinal dystrophy: Müller cells in rd mouse retina. J Comp Neurol. 2013; 521: 2439–2453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib80] 80. Madigan MC, Penfold PL, Provis JM, Balind TK, Billson FA. Intermediate filament expression in human retinal macroglia. Histopathologic changes associated with age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 1994; 14: 65–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib81] 81. Wu KHC, Madigan MC, Billson FA, Penfold PL. Differential expression of GFAP in early v late AMD: a quantitative analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87: 1159–1166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib82] 82. Shelley EJ, Madigan MC, Natoli R, Penfold PL, Provis JM. Cone degeneration in aging and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009; 127: 483–492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib83] 83. Pow DV, Sullivan RKP. Nuclear kinesis, neurite sprouting and abnormal axonal projections of cone photoreceptors in the aged and AMD-afflicted human retina. Exp Eye Res. 2007; 84: 850–857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib84] 84. Bonilha VL. Age and disease-related structural changes in the retinal pigment epithelium. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2008; 2: 413–424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib85] 85. Chao TI, Grosche J, Biedermann B, et al.. Comparative studies on mammalian Müller (retinal glial) cells. J Neurocytol. 1997; 26: 439–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib86] 86. Distler C, Dreher Z. Glia cells of the monkey retina—II. Müller cells. Vision Res . 1996; 36: 2381–2394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib87] 87. Zhang T, Zhu L, Madigan MC, et al.. Human macular Müller cells rely more on serine biosynthesis to combat oxidative stress than those from the periphery. Elife. 2019; 8: e43598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib88] 88. Too LK, Gracie G, Hasic E, Iwakura JH, Cherepanoff S. Adult human retinal Müller glia display distinct peripheral and macular expression of CD117 and CD44 stem cell-associated proteins. Acta Histochem. 2017; 119: 142–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib89] 89. Bringmann A, Syrbe S, Görner K, et al.. The primate fovea: structure, function and development. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018; 66:. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib90] 90. Ahnelt PK. The photoreceptor mosaic. Eye. 1998; 12(Pt 3b): 531–540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib91] 91. Godara P, Siebe C, Rha J, Michaelides M, Carroll J. Assessing the photoreceptor mosaic over drusen using adaptive optics and SD-OCT. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2010; 41(Suppl): S104–S108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib92] 92. Mrejen S, Sato T, Curcio CA, Spaide RF. Assessing the cone photoreceptor mosaic in eyes with pseudodrusen and soft drusen in vivo using adaptive optics imaging. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 545–551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib93] 93. Reumueller A, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Salas M, et al.. Three-dimensional adaptive optics–assisted visualization of photoreceptors in healthy and pathologically aged eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60: 1144–1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib94] 94. Querques G, Kamami-Levy C, Blanco-Garavito R, et al.. Appearance of medium–large drusen and reticular pseudodrusen on adaptive optics in age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98: 1522–1527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib95] 95. Zayit-Soudry S, Duncan JL, Syed R, Menghini M, Roorda AJ. Cone structure imaged with adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in eyes with nonneovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 7498–7509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib96] 96. Boretsky A, Khan F, Burnett G, et al.. In vivo imaging of photoreceptor disruption associated with age-related macular degeneration: a pilot study. Lasers Surg Med. 2012; 44: 603–610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib97] 97. Flamendorf J, Agrón E, Wong WT, et al.. Impairments in dark adaptation are associated with age-related macular degeneration severity and reticular pseudodrusen. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122: 2053–2062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib98] 98. Owsley C, McGwin G, Jackson GR, Kallies K, Clark M. Cone- and rod-mediated dark adaptation impairment in age-related maculopathy. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114: 1728–1735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib99] 99. Owsley C, Jackson GR, Cideciyan AV, et al.. Psychophysical evidence for rod vulnerability in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41: 267–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib100] 100. Owsley C, McGwin G Jr, Clark ME, et al.. Delayed rod-mediated dark adaptation is a functional biomarker for incident early age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123: 344–351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib101] 101. Jackson GR, Scott IU, Kim IK, Quillen DA, Iannaccone A, Edwards JG. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of dark adaptometry for detection of age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 1427–1431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib102] 102. Nittala MG, Velaga SB, Hariri A, et al.. Retinal sensitivity using microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration in an Amish population. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019; 50: e236–e241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib103] 103. Trinh M, Kalloniatis M, Nivison-Smith L. Radial peripapillary capillary plexus sparing and underlying retinal vascular impairment in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021; 62: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib104] 104. Cohen MJ, Kaliner E, Frenkel S, Kogan M, Miron H, Blumenthal EZ. Morphometric analysis of human peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49: 941–944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib105] 105. Blumenthal EZ. Quantifying retinal nerve fiber layer thickness histologically: a novel approach to sectioning of the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 1404–1409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib106] 106. Dichtl A, Jonas JB, Naumann GO. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in human eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999; 237: 474–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib107] 107. Varma R, Skaf M, Barron E. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in normal human eyes. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103: 2114–2119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib108] 108. Sullivan RKP, WoldeMussie E, Pow DV. Dendritic and synaptic plasticity of neurons in the human age-related macular degeneration retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 2782–2791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib109] 109. Fariss RN, Li Z-Y, Milam AH. Abnormalities in rod photoreceptors, amacrine cells, and horizontal cells in human retinas with retinitis pigmentosa. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129: 215–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib110] 110. Marc RE, Jones BW, Anderson JR, et al.. Neural reprogramming in retinal degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 3364–3371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib111] 111. Varela C, Igartua I, De la Rosa E, de la Villa P. Functional modifications in rod bipolar cells in a mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa. Vision Res . 2003; 43: 879–885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib112] 112. Strettoi E, Pignatelli V. Modifications of retinal neurons in a mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000; 97: 11020–11025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib113] 113. Machida S, Raz-Prag D, Fariss RN, Sieving PA, Bush RA. Photopic ERG negative response from amacrine cell signaling in RCS rat retinal degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49: 442–452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib114] 114. Dagar S, Nagar S, Goel M, Cherukuri P, Dhingra NK. Loss of photoreceptors results in upregulation of synaptic proteins in bipolar cells and amacrine cells. LoS ONE. 2014; 9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib115] 115. Sullivan R, Penfold P, Pow DV. Neuronal migration and glial remodeling in degenerating retinas of aged rats and in nonneovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44: 856–865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib116] 116. Marc RE, Jones BW, Watt CB, Vazquez-Chona F, Vaughan DK, Organisciak DT. Extreme retinal remodeling triggered by light damage: implications for age related macular degeneration. Mol Vis. 2008; 14: 782–805. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib117] 117. Feigl B, Brown B, Lovie-Kitchin J, Swann P. Functional loss in early age-related maculopathy: the ischaemia postreceptoral hypothesis. Eye. 2007; 21: 689–696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib118] 118. Panneman EL, Coric D, Tran LMD, de Vries-Knoppert WAEJ, Petzold A. Progression of anterograde trans-synaptic degeneration in the human retina is modulated by axonal convergence and divergence. Neuro-Ophthalmol . 2019; 43: 382–390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib119] 119. Iwama D, Tsujikawa A, Ojima Y, et al.. Relationship between retinal sensitivity and morphologic changes in eyes with confluent soft drusen. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010; 38: 483–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib120] 120. Wu Z, Ayton LN, Luu CD, Guymer RH. Relationship between retinal microstructures on optical coherence tomography and microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 1445–1452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib121] 121. Hartmann KI, Gomez ML, Bartsch D-UG, Schuster AK, Freeman WR. Effect of change in drusen evolution on photoreceptor inner segment/outer segment junction. Retina. 2012; 32: 1492–1499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib122] 122. Hartmann KI, Bartsch DU, Cheng L, et al.. Scanning laser ophthalmoscope imaging stabilized microperimetry in dry age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2011; 31: 1323–1331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib123] 123. Querques G, Canouï-Poitrine F, Coscas F, et al.. Analysis of progression of reticular pseudodrusen by spectral domain–optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 1264–1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib124] 124. Querques G, Querques L, Martinelli D, et al.. Pathologic insights from integrated imaging of reticular pseudodrusen in age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2011; 31: 518–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib125] 125. Zhang Y, Wang X, Rivero EB, et al.. Photoreceptor perturbation around subretinal drusenoid deposits as revealed by adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158: 584–596.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib126] 126. Spaide RF. Outer retinal atrophy after regression of subretinal drusenoid deposits as a newly recognized form of late Age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2013; 33: 1800–1808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib127] 127. Landa G, Su E, Garcia PMT, Seiple WH, Rosen RB. Inner segment-outer segment junctional layer integrity and corresponding retinal sensitivity in dry and wet forms of age-related macular degeneration. Retina Phila Pa. 2011; 31: 364–370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib128] 128. Yi K, Mujat M, Park BH, et al.. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography for quantitative evaluation of drusen and associated structural changes in non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 176–181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib129] 129. Pappuru RR, Ouyang Y, Nittala MG, et al.. Relationship between outer retinal thickness substructures and visual acuity in eyes with dry age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52: 6743–6748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib130] 130. Ko TH, Fujimoto JG, Schuman JS, et al.. Comparison of ultrahigh- and standard-resolution optical coherence tomography for imaging macular pathology. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112: 1922.e1–1922.e15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib131] 131. Ramon C, Cardona G, Biarnés M, Ferraro LL, Monés J. Longitudinal changes in outer nuclear layer thickness in soft drusen and reticular pseudodrusen. Clin Exp Optom. 2019; 102: 601–610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib132] 132. Sadigh S, Cideciyan AV, Sumaroka A, et al.. Abnormal thickening as well as thinning of the photoreceptor layer in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 1603–1612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib133] 133. Gorczynska I, Srinivasan VJ, Vuong LN, et al.. Projection OCT fundus imaging for visualising outer retinal pathology in non-exudative age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 603–609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib134] 134. Shin I-H, Lee W-H, Lee J-J, Jo Y-J, Kim J-Y. Thickness of the macula, retinal nerve fibre layer, and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer in age-related macular degeneration: The Repeatability Study of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography. Retina. 2018; 38: 253–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib135] 135. Camacho P, Dutra-Medeiros M, Páris L. Ganglion cell complex in early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration: evidence by SD-OCT manual segmentation. Ophthalmologica. 2017; 238: 31–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib136] 136. Schlanitz FG, Baumann B, Kundi M, et al.. Drusen volume development over time and its relevance to the course of age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017; 101: 198–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib137] 137. Toy BC, Krishnadev N, Indaram M, et al.. Drusen regression is associated with local changes in fundus autofluorescence in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 156: 532–542.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib138] 138. Davis MD, Gangnon RE, Lee LY, et al.. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 17. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123: 1484–1498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib139] 139. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al.. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311–1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib140] 140. Rutter M. Beyond longitudinal data: causes, consequences, changes, and continuity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994; 62: 928–940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Location-Specific Thickness Patterns in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration Reveals Anatomical Differences in Multiple Retinal Layers

Matt Trinh

Vincent Khou

Michael Kalloniatis

Lisa Nivison-Smith

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Methods

Study Population

Propensity-Score Matching

Image Acquisition and Retinal Layer Segmentation

Figure 1.

Data Extraction

Global Analysis

Location-Specific Analysis

Figure 2.

Interlayer Correlation Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Results

Participant Demographics

Table 1.

Global Analysis in All Retinal Layers

Figure 3.

Location-Specific Analysis in the RNFL and GCL

Figure 4.

Location-Specific Analysis in the IPL, INL, and OPL

Figure 5.

Location-Specific Analysis in the ONL+HFL, IS/OS, and RPE-BM

Figure 6.

Correlating Interlayer Thickness Differences in iAMD

Table 2.

Discussion

Location-Specific Thickness Analysis Highlights iAMD Anatomy

Proposed Mechanisms for “Sparing” of the RNFL and INL

Postreceptoral Degeneration in AMD

Limitations

Conclusion

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Location-Specific Analysis in the ONL_+HFL, IS/OS, and RPE-BM