↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A medieval fallacy: the crystalline lens in the center of the eye

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
18 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
A medieval fallacy: the crystalline lens in the center of the eye
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s100708
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher T Leffler, Tamer M Hadi, Akrithi Udupa, Stephen G Schwartz, Daniel Schwartz

Abstract

To determine whether, as most modern historians have written, ancient Greco-Roman authors believed the crystalline lens is positioned in the center of the eye. Historians have written that statements about cataract couching by Celsus, or perhaps Galen of Pergamon, suggested a centrally located lens. Celsus specifically wrote that a couching needle placed intermediate between the corneal limbus and the lateral canthus enters an empty space, presumed to represent the posterior chamber. Ancient ophthalmic literature was analyzed to understand where these authors believed the crystalline lens was positioned. In order to estimate where Celsus proposed entering the eye during couching, we prospectively measured the distance from the temporal corneal limbus to the lateral canthus in 30 healthy adults. Rufus of Ephesus and Galen wrote that the lens is anterior enough to contact the iris. Galen wrote that the lens equator joins other ocular structures at the corneoscleral junction. In 30 subjects, half the distance from the temporal corneal limbus to the lateral canthus was a mean of 4.5 mm (range: 3.3-5.3 mm). Descriptions of couching by Celsus and others are consistent with pars plana entry of the couching needle. Anterior angulation of the needle would permit contact of the needle with the lens. Ancient descriptions of anatomy and couching do not establish the microanatomic relationships of the ciliary region with any modern degree of accuracy. Nonetheless, ancient authors, such as Galen and Rufus, clearly understood that the lens is located anteriorly. There is little reason to believe that Celsus or other ancient authors held a variant understanding of the anatomy of a healthy eye. The notion of the central location of the lens seems to have arisen with Arabic authors in 9th century Mesopotamia, and lasted for over 7 centuries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2024.
All research outputs
#4,872,212
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#405
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,648
of 315,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#11
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.