Association analyses of the measurements of the photopic negative response evoked by two ISCEV protocols.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Bing Zhang, Jiajun Wang, Yalan Wang, Yilin Jiang, Yun-E Zhao
{"title":"Association analyses of the measurements of the photopic negative response evoked by two ISCEV protocols.","authors":"Bing Zhang, Jiajun Wang, Yalan Wang, Yilin Jiang, Yun-E Zhao","doi":"10.1007/s00417-024-06718-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To perform association analyses between the measurements of photopic negative response (PhNR) evoked by two ISCEV protocols.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 172 eyes from 72 post-operative pediatric cataract patients and 24 healthy children were enrolled. The amplitude and peak time of PhNR were analyzed in three eye groups, 1. healthy controls; 2. fellow eyes of unilaterally affected patients; 3. affected eyes. PhNR responses were measured with skin-electrodes and evoked by the ISCEV standard protocols of PhNR and light-adapted 3.0, referred to as PhNR1 and PhNR2. The correlation coefficients between PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were calculated. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model of PhNR1, with PhNR2 as a predictor, was evaluated after adjusting for correlation between paired eyes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the amplitude (P = 0.025) and the peak time (P = 0.036) of PhNR1 showed a significant difference among the three eye groups, which was not observed in PhNR2. The four correlation coefficients (Pearson, Intraclass, Lin's and Kendall's) between z-score transformed PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were generally moderate: 0.52, 0.52, 0.52, 0.36 for amplitude (P < 0.001), and 0.57, 0.57, 0.57, 0.36 for peak time (P < 0.001). The amplitude of PhNR1 cannot be precisely predicted by PhNR2, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 36.7%, while the peak time of PhNR1 can be precisely predicted with a MAPE of 3.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PhNR1 appears to be a more sensitive measure than PhNR2 for detecting eye group differences. Further research is needed to confirm this and explore its clinical applications. PhNR1 may not be entirely replaced by PhNR2 due to moderate correlation and low prediction precision in amplitude.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06718-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To perform association analyses between the measurements of photopic negative response (PhNR) evoked by two ISCEV protocols.

Methods: A total of 172 eyes from 72 post-operative pediatric cataract patients and 24 healthy children were enrolled. The amplitude and peak time of PhNR were analyzed in three eye groups, 1. healthy controls; 2. fellow eyes of unilaterally affected patients; 3. affected eyes. PhNR responses were measured with skin-electrodes and evoked by the ISCEV standard protocols of PhNR and light-adapted 3.0, referred to as PhNR1 and PhNR2. The correlation coefficients between PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were calculated. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model of PhNR1, with PhNR2 as a predictor, was evaluated after adjusting for correlation between paired eyes.

Results: Both the amplitude (P = 0.025) and the peak time (P = 0.036) of PhNR1 showed a significant difference among the three eye groups, which was not observed in PhNR2. The four correlation coefficients (Pearson, Intraclass, Lin's and Kendall's) between z-score transformed PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were generally moderate: 0.52, 0.52, 0.52, 0.36 for amplitude (P < 0.001), and 0.57, 0.57, 0.57, 0.36 for peak time (P < 0.001). The amplitude of PhNR1 cannot be precisely predicted by PhNR2, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 36.7%, while the peak time of PhNR1 can be precisely predicted with a MAPE of 3.9%.

Conclusions: PhNR1 appears to be a more sensitive measure than PhNR2 for detecting eye group differences. Further research is needed to confirm this and explore its clinical applications. PhNR1 may not be entirely replaced by PhNR2 due to moderate correlation and low prediction precision in amplitude.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
398
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信