A novel 5-ring multifocal electroretinography stimulus for detecting hydroxychloroquine retinal toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) shows great utility as a screening tool to detect early hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) retinopathy, but its widespread use is limited by the lack of accessibility and long test duration. In this study, we evaluated a novel concentric 5-ring mfERG stimulus to provide a simplified and rapid protocol for screening HCQ toxicity. METHODS: Patients referred for HCQ retinopathy screening were consented to this observational cross-sectional study. Patients with amblyopia, high refractive error (more than 8 diopters), other retinal diseases precluding appropriate evaluation or history of retinal surgery were excluded. The data were collected from patients undergoing HCQ screening at a single center from July 2019 to March 2020. Patients were tested with the new concentric 5-ring mfERG stimulus, standard 61-hexagon mfERG stimulus, spectral domain optical coherence tomography and automated 10-2 visual fields. For the main outcome, the 5-ring mfERG was compared to 61-hexagon stimulus to determine the time-to-test completion and assess the association between ring (R1-R5) amplitude and ring ratio compared against cumulative dose, dose by real body weight and duration of therapy using Pearson correlation. RESULTS: In total, 52 patients (104 eyes; 5 males and 47 females) were recruited with a mean age of 59 years (range 23-85 years). The 5-ring protocol was markedly quicker to perform (1.3 ± 0.2 min; mean (SD)) compared to the 61-hexagon protocol (5.2 ± 0.6 min), p < 0.0001; n = 10 patients. The new R2/R5 ring ratio showed a moderate correlation with daily dose (r = - 0.640), cumulative dose (r = - 0.581) and duration of therapy (r = - 0.417). Similar correlations were observed with the new R2/R4 ring ratio which were not significantly different from the new R2/R5 correlation coefficients. The new R2/R5 ring ratio demonstrated a stronger correlation with daily (p = 0.002) and cumulative dose (p = 0.0001) compared to the 61-hexagon stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, our novel 5-ring mfERG protocol significantly shortened data acquisition time while providing comparable results to the standard 61-hexagon stimulus for detecting HCQ-induced electrophysiological changes that are correlated with HCQ dosages and treatment duration. Our protocol has the potential to be more clinically practical by simplifying routine screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".