Comparison of Near-Infrared and Short-Wavelength Autofluorescence in Retinitis Pigmentosa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare near-infrared autofluorescence (NIR-AF) and short-wavelength (SW) AF in retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and assess their relationships to underlying retinal structure and visual function. METHODS: SW-AF, NIR-AF, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) images were acquired from 31 patients (31 eyes) with RP and registered to each other. Microperimetry was performed on a subset of 12 patients. For both SW-AF and NIR-AF images, three independent observers measured the area enclosed by the outer border of the hyperautofluorescent ring and the distance from the fovea to the outer and inner border of the ring. For SD-OCT images, the distance from the fovea to the location where the inner segment ellipsoid (ISe) band became undetectable was measured. RESULTS: All eyes had a hyperautofluorescent ring on both SW-AF and NIR-AF. The position of the outer border of the ring was similar for both modalities. On NIR-AF the signal outside the ring was lower than inside the ring, resulting in a high contrast between the two areas. Also, the inner border of the ring was closer to the fovea on NIR-AF than SW-AF, corresponding to a location on SD-OCT where the ISe band was at least partially intact. Visual sensitivity was relatively preserved within the ring, reduced across the ring, and markedly decreased or nonrecordable outside the ring. CONCLUSIONS: SW-AF and NIR-AF are both useful for monitoring disease progression in RP; however, NIR-AF may have advantages clinically and could unveil a process that precedes the formation of fluorophores that emit the SW-AF signal.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it