MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3013739803 · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.020

Faster Sensitivity Loss around Dense Scotomas than for Overall Macular Sensitivity in Stargardt Disease: ProgStar Report No. 14

2020· article· en· W3013739803 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Etienne M. Schönbach, Rupert W. Strauß, Mohamed Ibrahim, Jessica L. Janes, David G. Birch, Artur V. Cideciyan, Janet S. Sunness, Beatriz Muñoz, Michael S. Ip, Srinivas R. Sadda, Hendrik P. N. Scholl, Yulia Wolfson, Millena Bittencourt, Syed Mahmood Shah, Mohamed Ahmed, Kaoru Fujinami, Elias I. Traboulsi, Justis P. Ehlers, Meghan J. Marino, Susan Crowe, Rachael Briggs, Angela Borer, Anne Pinter, Tami Fecko, Nikki Burgnoni, Carol A. Applegate, Leslie Russell, Michel Michaelides, Simona Degli Esposti, Anthony T. Moore, Andrew R. Webster, Sophie Connor, Jade Barnfield, Zaid Salchi, Clara Alfageme, Victoria McCudden, Maria Pefkianaki, Jonathan Aboshiha, Gerald Liew, Graham E. Holder, Anthony G. Robson, Alexa King, Daniela Ivanova Cajas Narvaez, Katy Barnard, Catherine Grigg, Hannah Dunbar, Yetunde Obadeyi, Karine Girard-Claudon, Hilary Swann, Avani Rughani, Charles Amoah, Dominic Carrington, Kanom Bibi, Emerson Ting, Mohamed Nafaz Illiyas, Hamida Begum, Andrew Carter, Anne Georgiou, Selma Lewism, Saddaf Shaheen, Harpreet Shinmar, Linda M. Burton, Paul S. Bernstein, Kimberley Wegner, Briana Lauren Sawyer, Bonnie Carlstrom, Kellian Farnsworth, Cyrie Fry, Melissa Chandler, Glen Jenkins, Donnel Creel, Yi‐Zhong Wang, Luis Rodriguez, Kirsten Locke, Martin Klein, Paulina Mejia, Samuel G. Jacobson, Sharon Schwartz, Rodrigo Matsui, Michaela Gruzensky, Jason Charng, Alejandro J. Román, Eberhart Zrenner, Fadi Nasser, Gesa Astrid Hahn, Barbara Wilhelm, Tobias Peters, Benjamin Beier, Tilman Koenig, Susanne Krämer, José‐Alain Sahel, Saddek Mohand‐Saïd, Isabelle Audo, Caroline Laurent‐Coriat, Ieva Sliesoraitytė, Christina Zeitz, Fiona Boyard, Minh Ha Tran, Mathias Chapon, Céline Chaumette, Juliette Amaudruz, Victoria J. Ganem, Serge Sancho, Aurore Girmens, Robert Wojciechowski, Shazia Khan, David Emmert, Dennis Cain, Mark Herring, Jennifer Bassinger, Lisa Liberto, Sheila K. West, Ann‐Margret Ervin, Xiangrong Kong, Kurt Dreger, Jennifer M. Jones, Anamika Jha, Alexander Ho, Brendan Kramer, Ngoc Lam, Rita Tawdros, Yong Dong Zhou, Johana Carmona, Akihito Uji, Amirhossein Hariri, Amy Lock, Anthony Elshafei, Anushika Ganegoda, Christine Petrossian, Dennis Jenkins, Edward Strnad, Elmira Baghdasaryan, Eric Ito, Feliz Samson, Gloria Blanquel, Handan Akıl, Jhanisus Melendez, Jianqin Lei, Jianyan Huang, Jonathan Chau, Khalil Ghasemi Falavarjani, Kristina Espino, Manfred Li, Maria A. Mendoza, Muneeswar Gupta Nittala, Netali Roded, Nizar Saleh, Ping Huang, Sean Pitetta, Siva Balasubramanian, Sophie Leahy, Sowmya J. Srinivas, Swetha Bindu Velaga, Teresa Margaryan, Tudor Tepelus, Tyler Brown, Wenying Fan, Yamileth Murillo, Yue Shi, Katherine Elizabeth Gonzaga Aguilar, Cynthia Chan, Lisa Santos, Brian Seo, Christopher Sison, Silvia Pérez, Stephanie D. Chao, Kelly Miyasato, Julia Higgins, Zoila Luna, Anita Menchaca, Norma Gonzalez, Vicky Robledo, Karen Carig, Kirstie Baker, David J. Ellenbogen, Daniel Bluemel, Theo Sanford, Daisy Linares, Mei Tran, Lorane Nava, Michelle K. Oberoi, Mark Romero, Vivian Chiguil, Grantley Bynum-Bain, Monica Kim, Carolina Mendiguren, Xiwen Huang, Monika Smith, Natalie Sarreal

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueRetinal Development and Disorders
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesDaiichi Sankyo EuropeSpark TherapeuticsAllerganUniversity of California, Los AngelesTelemedicine and Advanced Technology Research CenterFoundation Fighting BlindnessGenentechDeutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina - Nationale Akademie der WissenschaftenNovartisMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustUniversity of PennsylvaniaOmeros CorporationNovo NordiskBoehringer IngelheimAustrian Science FundHeidelberg EngineeringApellis PharmaceuticalsMedizinische Universität GrazMedical Research and Materiel CommandDuke Clinical Research InstituteAstellas PharmaIonis PharmaceuticalsUniversität BaselCarl Zeiss Meditec AGJohns Hopkins UniversityDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los AngelesCase Western Reserve UniversityF. Hoffmann-La RocheNightstaRxSanofiKarl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Mots-clésMicroperimetryMedicineStargardt diseaseBlind spotCentral scotomaOphthalmologyCohortProspective cohort studyOptometrySurgeryRetinalInternal medicineVisual acuityArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

•This study reports a novel automated approach to quantify progression of visual dysfunction.•This automated approach was validated relative to a manual grading.•The progression rate at the disease front in Stargardt disease is reported.•The new method may allow shorter clinical trials or smaller cohorts or both. PurposeMean sensitivity (MS) derived from a standard test grid using microperimetry is a sensitive outcome measure in clinical trials investigating new treatments for degenerative retinal diseases. This study hypothesizes that the functional decline is faster at the edge of the dense scotoma (eMS) than by using the overall MS.DesignMulticenter, international, prospective cohort study: ProgStar Study.MethodsStargardt disease type 1 patients (carrying at least 1 mutation in the ABCA4 gene) were followed over 12 months using microperimetry with a Humphrey 10-2 test grid. Customized software was developed to automatically define and selectively follow the test points directly adjacent to the dense scotoma points and to calculate their mean sensitivity (eMS).ResultsAmong 361 eyes (185 patients), the mean age was 32.9 ± 15.1 years old. At baseline, MS was 10.4 ± 5.2 dB (n = 361), and the eMS was 9.3 ± 3.3 dB (n = 335). The yearly progression rate of MS (1.5 ± 2.1 dB/year) was significantly lower (β = −1.33; P < .001) than that for eMS (2.9 ± 2.9 dB/year). There were no differences between progression rates using automated grading and those using manual grading (β = .09; P = .461).ConclusionsIn Stargardt disease type 1, macular sensitivity declines significantly faster at the edge of the dense scotoma than in the overall test grid. An automated, time-efficient approach for extracting and grading eMS is possible and appears valid. Thus, eMS offers a valuable tool and sensitive outcome parameter with which to follow Stargardt patients in clinical trials, allowing clinical trial designs with shorter duration and/or smaller cohorts. Mean sensitivity (MS) derived from a standard test grid using microperimetry is a sensitive outcome measure in clinical trials investigating new treatments for degenerative retinal diseases. This study hypothesizes that the functional decline is faster at the edge of the dense scotoma (eMS) than by using the overall MS. Multicenter, international, prospective cohort study: ProgStar Study. Stargardt disease type 1 patients (carrying at least 1 mutation in the ABCA4 gene) were followed over 12 months using microperimetry with a Humphrey 10-2 test grid. Customized software was developed to automatically define and selectively follow the test points directly adjacent to the dense scotoma points and to calculate their mean sensitivity (eMS). Among 361 eyes (185 patients), the mean age was 32.9 ± 15.1 years old. At baseline, MS was 10.4 ± 5.2 dB (n = 361), and the eMS was 9.3 ± 3.3 dB (n = 335). The yearly progression rate of MS (1.5 ± 2.1 dB/year) was significantly lower (β = −1.33; P < .001) than that for eMS (2.9 ± 2.9 dB/year). There were no differences between progression rates using automated grading and those using manual grading (β = .09; P = .461). In Stargardt disease type 1, macular sensitivity declines significantly faster at the edge of the dense scotoma than in the overall test grid. An automated, time-efficient approach for extracting and grading eMS is possible and appears valid. Thus, eMS offers a valuable tool and sensitive outcome parameter with which to follow Stargardt patients in clinical trials, allowing clinical trial designs with shorter duration and/or smaller cohorts.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,917

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations31
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of OphthalmologyMême sujetRetinal Development and DisordersTravaux en français237 207