Advance in ERG Analysis: From Peak Time and Amplitude to Frequency, Power, and Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare time domain (TD: peak time and amplitude) analysis of the human photopic electroretinogram (ERG) with measures obtained in the frequency domain (Fourier analysis: FA) and in the time-frequency domain (continuous (CWT) and discrete (DWT) wavelet transforms). METHODS: Normal ERGs (n = 40) were analyzed using traditional peak time and amplitude measurements of the a- and b-waves in the TD and descriptors extracted from FA, CWT, and DWT. Selected descriptors were also compared in their ability to monitor the long-term consequences of disease process. RESULTS: Each method extracted relevant information but had distinct limitations (i.e., temporal and frequency resolutions). The DWT offered the best compromise by allowing us to extract more relevant descriptors of the ERG signal at the cost of lesser temporal and frequency resolutions. Follow-ups of disease progression were more prolonged with the DWT (max 29 years compared to 13 with TD). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized time domain analysis of retinal function should be complemented with advanced DWT descriptors of the ERG. This method should allow more sensitive/specific quantifications of ERG responses, facilitate follow-up of disease progression, and identify diagnostically significant changes of ERG waveforms that are not resolved when the analysis is only limited to time domain measurements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".