MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026946886 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbaa029.573

T13. CORNEAL CONFOCAL MICROSCOPY DETECTS NEURAL CHANGES IN SCHIZOPHRENIA

2020· article· en· W3026946886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Woodruff, Georgios Ponirakis, Reem Ghandi, Amani Hussein, Ioannis N. Petropoulos, Adnan Khan, Hoda Gad, Ahmed Aly Al Sotouhy, Ahmed Own, Surjith Vattoth, Marwan Ramadan, Hanadi Al Hamad, James Currie, Rayaz A. Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyOphthalmologyPathologyPsychologyPsychiatryPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A combination of neurodevelopmental and degenerative neural changes are likely to underpin positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia. However, there are currently no validated biomarkers to accurately quantify the extent of neural changes in schizophrenia. Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is a non-invasive ophthalmic imaging technique that has been used to demonstrate in vivo corneal nerve fiber abnormalities in a range of peripheral neuropathies and central neurodegenerative disorders including Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and dementia. We wished to test the hypothesis that corneal nerve abnormalities occur in patients with schizophrenia, particularly those with negative symptoms and cognitive impairment. Methods Patients with DSM-V schizophrenia without other causes of peripheral neuropathy other than metabolic syndrome underwent assessment of clinical ratings (Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS), cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), vibration perception threshold (VPT) and sudomotor function testing. Healthy controls underwent the same assessments apart from PANSS. Results 55 subjects without (n=38) and with schizophrenia (n=17) with comparable mean age (35.7±8.5 vs 35.6±12.2, P=0.96) were studied. Patients with schizophrenia had significantly higher body weight (93.9±25.5 vs 77.1±10.1, P=0.02) and lower Low Density Lipoproteins (2.6±1.0 vs 3.4±0.7, P=0.02) compared with healthy controls. The proportion of gender, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, HbA1c, cholesterol, triglyceride and High Density Lipoproteins were comparable between the two groups. Patients with schizophrenia had significantly lower corneal nerve fibre density (CNFD, fibers/mm2) (35.6±6.5 vs 23.5±7.8, p<0.0001), branch density (CNBD, branches/mm2) (98.1±30.6 vs 34.4±26.9, p<0.0001), and fibre length (CNFL, mm/mm2) (24.2±3.9 vs 14.3±4.7, p<0.0001) compared with healthy controls but no difference in peripheral neuropathy assessed by VPT and sudomotor function testing. The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (95% CI) of CNFD, CNBD, CNFL to distinguish patients with schizophrenia from healthy controls were 87.0% (76.8–98.2%), 93.2% (84.2–102.3%), 93.2% (84.4–102.1%), respectively. Discussion These preliminary results:

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0060.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207