MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving the diagnostic potential of the photopic electroretinogram (ERG) with refined mathematical tools

2008· article· en· W2026939105 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Lachapelle, C. Jauffret, ML GARON, Milan Mikula, Naveen Mysore, Julie Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotopic visionErgElectroretinographyPhysicsSign (mathematics)OpticsMathematicsMedicineStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Examine if the use of refined mathematical tools increases the understanding and diagnostic potential of the photopic ERGs. Methods Analyses were performed on normal and pathological photopic ERGs (background of 30 cd.m‐2; flash intensities ranging from ‐0.8 to 2.84 log cd.sec.m‐2 in 15 steps; n>100). Mathematical instruments included: 1‐ the Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT)2‐ The Reiman Integrator and 3‐ the Photopic Hill Gaussian:Logistic ratio [GL=Gb/(Gb+Vbmax)]claimed to weight the contribution of the OFF and ON pathways to the photopic ERG. Results 1‐ CWT revealed 3 distinct frequency domains within the 10‐50 msec poststimulus time interval, namely: 20‐40 Hz, 90‐150 Hz and 200‐300 Hz that appeared to be independently modulated by flash intensity and/or pathology. 2‐ Integration of the OPs accurately reconstructed the broadband ERGs (r>0.90), irrespective of CWT. 3‐ In our cohort of RP patients (n=50), the GL ratio was 0.43 ±0.23, compared to 0.60±0.08 in normal (p<.05). Conclusion 1‐CWT dissects the ERG into its primary components, a method that should allow a more accurate quantification of ERG responses. 2‐ Strong evidence supports the concept that the b‐wave results from the integration of the OPs. The value of the integration constant (1 sec) is close to the time constant of the Muller cell membrane suggesting that the latter could be at the origin of this integration. 3‐The broader GL distribution obtained from our RP cohort suggests that in some the OFF retinal pathway is primarily affected while in others the ON is. It remains to be determined if the latter represents two stages of the same disease process or two different disease paths. Supported by CIHR and Réseau Vision.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207