Diagnostic value of intereye difference metrics for optic neuritis in aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The novel optic neuritis (ON) diagnostic criteria include intereye differences (IED) of optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters. IED has proven valuable for ON diagnosis in multiple sclerosis but has not been evaluated in aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (AQP4+NMOSD). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of intereye absolute (IEAD) and percentage difference (IEPD) in AQP4+NMOSD after unilateral ON >6 months before OCT as compared with healthy controls (HC). METHODS: Twenty-eight AQP4+NMOSD after unilateral ON (NMOSD-ON), 62 HC and 45 AQP4+NMOSD without ON history (NMOSD-NON) were recruited by 13 centres as part of the international Collaborative Retrospective Study on retinal OCT in Neuromyelitis Optica study. Mean thickness of peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (pRNFL) and macular ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) were quantified by Spectralis spectral domain OCT. Threshold values of the ON diagnostic criteria (pRNFL: IEAD 5 µm, IEPD 5%; GCIPL: IEAD: 4 µm, IEPD: 4%) were evaluated using receiver operating characteristics and area under the curve (AUC) metrics. RESULTS: The discriminative power was high for NMOSD-ON versus HC for IEAD (pRNFL: AUC 0.95, specificity 82%, sensitivity 86%; GCIPL: AUC 0.93, specificity 98%, sensitivity 75%) and IEPD (pRNFL: AUC 0.96, specificity 87%, sensitivity 89%; GCIPL: AUC 0.94, specificity 96%, sensitivity 82%). The discriminative power was high/moderate for NMOSD-ON versus NMOSD-NON for IEAD (pRNFL: AUC 0.92, specificity 77%, sensitivity 86%; GCIP: AUC 0.87, specificity 85%, sensitivity 75%) and for IEPD (pRNFL: AUC 0.94, specificity 82%, sensitivity 89%; GCIP: AUC 0.88, specificity 82%, sensitivity 82%). CONCLUSIONS: Results support the validation of the IED metrics as OCT parameters of the novel diagnostic ON criteria in AQP4+NMOSD.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".