MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381512110 · doi:10.3390/s23135782

Retinal Prostheses: Engineering and Clinical Perspectives for Vision Restoration

2023· review· en· W4381512110 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinal implantRetinitis pigmentosaRetinalRetinal ProsthesisVisual prosthesisMacular degenerationRetinaRetinal degenerationNeuroscienceMedicineOphthalmologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retinal prosthesis, also known as a bionic eye, is a device that can be implanted to partially restore vision in patients with retinal diseases that have resulted in the loss of photoreceptors (e.g., age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa). Recently, there have been major breakthroughs in retinal prosthesis technology, with the creation of numerous types of implants, including epiretinal, subretinal, and suprachoroidal sensors. These devices can stimulate the remaining cells in the retina with electric signals to create a visual sensation. A literature review of the pre-clinical and clinical studies published between 2017 and 2023 is conducted. This narrative review delves into the retinal anatomy, physiology, pathology, and principles underlying electronic retinal prostheses. Engineering aspects are explored, including electrode-retina alignment, electrode size and material, charge density, resolution limits, spatial selectivity, and bidirectional closed-loop systems. This article also discusses clinical aspects, focusing on safety, adverse events, visual function, outcomes, and the importance of rehabilitation programs. Moreover, there is ongoing debate over whether implantable retinal devices still offer a promising approach for the treatment of retinal diseases, considering the recent emergence of cell-based and gene-based therapies as well as optogenetics. This review compares retinal prostheses with these alternative therapies, providing a balanced perspective on their advantages and limitations. The recent advancements in retinal prosthesis technology are also outlined, emphasizing progress in engineering and the outlook of retinal prostheses. While acknowledging the challenges and complexities of the technology, this article highlights the significant potential of retinal prostheses for vision restoration in individuals with retinal diseases and calls for continued research and development to refine and enhance their performance, ultimately improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

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.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.264 · 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