Enhanced photoelectrochemical activity of Co-doped β-In2S3 nanoflakes as photoanodes for water splitting

This work is primarily focused on indium sulfide (β-In2S3) and cobalt (Co)-doped β-In2S3 nanoflakes as photoanodes for water oxidation. The incorporation of cobalt introduces new dopant energy levels increasing visible light absorption and leading to improved photo-activity. In addition, cobalt ion centers in β-In2S3 act as potential catalytic sites to promote electro-activity. 5 mol% Co-doped β-In2S3 nanoflakes when tested for photoelectrochemical water splitting exhibited a photocurrent density of 0.69 mA cm−2 at 1.23 V, much higher than that of pure β-In2S3

Tin disulfide based ternary composites for visible light driven photoelectrochemical water splitting

Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting could potentially solve the global energy crisis and environmental pollution. In the present work, ternary composites consisting of 2D nanomaterials of SnS2, reduced graphene oxide (RGO), and mesoporous graphitic carbon nitride (mpg-C3N4) are synthesized with layered architecture. The photocurrent density of the ternary composite is 1.45 mA/cm 2 at 1.23 V vs RHE, which is over 23 times higher than that of pure SnS2. The superior photocatalytic activity of mpg-C3N4/SnS2/RGO composite is attributed to synchronous effects of all the materials leading to enhanced electron-hole pair separation, as well as increased visible-light absorption

Imaging characteristics of bilateral CSCR cases:12 months follow up

Purpose: To report the disease pattern, progression and imaging characteristics in eyes with bilateral central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR). Methods: This was a retrospective case review of bilateral CSCR patients with active disease in at least one eye. Multimodal imaging including fundus photography, fundus autofluorescence, optical coherence tomography (OCT), fluorescein and indocyanine angiography (FA/ICGA) was done at baseline and follow-up visits. Disease classification was done using recently described classification criteria. The degree of asymmetry in the disease distribution pattern at baseline and disease progression during follow-up visit with a minimum duration of 12 months was studied. Results: Among 103 CSCR patients, 36 patients (34.95%) with mean age of 53.6 ± 10.5 years had bilateral CSCR at baseline. Five patients (13.9%) had asymmetrical disease i.e. simple in one eye and complex in fellow eye. The remaining 31 patients had symmetric disease (simple, 2; complex 29). Mean duration of follow up was 17.58 ± 13.84 months. There was no significant difference between both eye parameters at last follow up (best corrected visual acuity, BCVA; central macular thickness, CMT; and subfoveal choroidal thickness, SFCT) (all p > 0.05). At last follow up, 22 eyes (2 simple and 20 complex) remained active whereas none of the eyes converted from simple to complex CSCR. Conclusion: Bilateral disease was more commonly seen with complex CSCR in contrast to simple CSCR. Moreover, disease distribution in complex CSCR had symmetric pattern if bilateral disease was present. None of the simple CSCR eyes converted to complex type

Influence of fellow eye on the diagnosis and classification of central serous chorioretinopathy

Purpose: To assess the influence of fellow eye information on diagnosis and classification of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) using multimodal imaging-based classification. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study including patients with CSCR with unilateral or bilateral involvement. Multimodal images of both eyes of each patient were compiled and presented to two masked retina specialists subdivided into three groups: (1) both eye data, (2) right eye data and (3) left eye data. The masked observers graded the CSCR as per the new CSCR classification into simple and complex CSCR in three different scenarios as subdivided above. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa (95% confidence intervals). Results: A total of 206 eyes of 103 patients with unilateral or bilateral CSCR were graded. We found a “strong” intraobserver and interobserver agreement when one eye versus both eye data was provided in terms of “simple CSCR” or “complex CSCR” (kappa value = 0.77 and 0.87, p < 0.001, and kappa value = 0.85 and 0.76, p < 0.001, respectively). Forty-three eyes (10.55%) showed discrepancy in classification between observers for individual eyes, whereas only 13 eyes (6.53%) showed discrepancy between observers when both eye data was provided. Conclusion: We conclude that fellow eye information was helpful in solving diagnostic dilemmas and reached 85% consensus in the diagnosis of CSCR between the observers. We found that information of fellow eyes led to a discrepancy only in 6.53% cases with 2.42% cases that had a controversial diagnosis of CSCR. Multimodal imaging-based CSCR classification provides objective approach to diagnose and classify CSCR

Correction to: Visual acuity correlates with multimodal imaging-based categories of central serous chorioretinopathy (Eye, (2021), 10.1038/s41433-021-01788-4)

In this article the author name Ramesh Venkatesh was incorrectly written as Ramesh Vankatesh. The original article has been corrected

Influence of fellow eye on the diagnosis and classification of central serous chorioretinopathy

Purpose: To assess the influence of fellow eye information on diagnosis and classification of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) using multimodal imaging-based classification. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study including patients with CSCR with unilateral or bilateral involvement. Multimodal images of both eyes of each patient were compiled and presented to two masked retina specialists subdivided into three groups: (1) both eye data, (2) right eye data and (3) left eye data. The masked observers graded the CSCR as per the new CSCR classification into simple and complex CSCR in three different scenarios as subdivided above. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa (95% confidence intervals). Results: A total of 206 eyes of 103 patients with unilateral or bilateral CSCR were graded. We found a “strong” intraobserver and interobserver agreement when one eye versus both eye data was provided in terms of “simple CSCR” or “complex CSCR” (kappa value = 0.77 and 0.87, p < 0.001, and kappa value = 0.85 and 0.76, p < 0.001, respectively). Forty-three eyes (10.55%) showed discrepancy in classification between observers for individual eyes, whereas only 13 eyes (6.53%) showed discrepancy between observers when both eye data was provided. Conclusion: We conclude that fellow eye information was helpful in solving diagnostic dilemmas and reached 85% consensus in the diagnosis of CSCR between the observers. We found that information of fellow eyes led to a discrepancy only in 6.53% cases with 2.42% cases that had a controversial diagnosis of CSCR. Multimodal imaging-based CSCR classification provides objective approach to diagnose and classify CSCR

Correction to: Influence of fellow eye on the diagnosis and classification of central serous chorioretinopathy (Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, (2021), 10.1007/s00417-021-05435-2)

In the original published article, one of the author names has been misspelled. “Ramesh Vankatesh” should be “Ramesh Venkatesh” This is being corrected in this publication