MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi 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
KeywordsMicroperimetryMedicineStargardt diseaseBlind spotCentral scotomaOphthalmologyCohortProspective cohort studyOptometrySurgeryRetinalInternal medicineVisual acuityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207