MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Test of photopic negative response of electroretinogram with DTL electrode in normal Chinese subjects

2006· article· en· W2351374833 on OpenAlexaff
李明翰, 吴德正, Stuart G. Coupland, 龙时先, 梁炯基

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua shiyan yanke zazhi · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotopic visionOphthalmologyMedicineElectroretinographyAudiologyRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveTo test normal values of photopic negative response (PhNR) of electroretinogram (ERG) with DTL electrode in normal Chinese subjects and to evaluate the characteristic of PhNR.MethodsERGs were recorded on 65 normal subjects (112 eyes) aged 21-76 years using disposable DTL electrodes at full-field ganzfeld brief red flashes on a blue background (luminance of 10 cd/m 2 ).Stimulus flashes of different intensity (1cd·s/m 2 ,5cd·s/m 2 and 7cd·s/m 2 ) were generated by light emitting diodes (LEDs).The amplitudes and latencies of PhNR with age were analyzed.ResultsThe data were divided into 50 years group and ≥50 years group after statistical analysis.The mean latencies in the 50 years group was 65.83±4.06ms,66.17±6.48ms and 65.81±6.71ms at 1,5 and 7 cd·s/m2 respectively which was statistically significant different from that ≥50 years group(69.86±5.68ms,71.33 ± 4.90ms and 70.40±4.61ms,respectively)(P0.001).Mean amplitude of 50 years group was significantly higher than that of ≥50 years group at different stimulus intensities ( -38.94 ± 10.21μV,-38.51± 10.97μV,-38.62± 9.98μV vs-32.41± 7.76μV,-34.52±8.90μV,-33.96± 9.81μV,respectively)(P0.001,P=0.047,P=0.017).ConclusionUse of disposable DTL electrodes can prevent cross infection.Our results record the normal values of PhNR by age group in normal Chinese subjects and provide normal reference limits in clinical practice.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua shiyan yanke zazhiSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207