MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390199885 · doi:10.1002/alz.072869

The visibility of retinal amyloid deposits as a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease when imaged in polarized light through the cornea

2023· article· en· W4390199885 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie C. W. Campbell, Yurii Potsiluienko, Erik Mason, Rachel Redekop, Monika Kitor, Laura Emptage, Veronica Hirsch‐Reinshagen, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Ian R. Mackenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver General HospitalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorneaRetinaEx vivoContrast (vision)RetinalVisibilityIn vivoOphthalmologyAmyloid (mycology)ChemistryMaterials sciencePathologyOpticsMedicineBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background We previously reported a novel, dye‐free method to image amyloid deposits in the retina. Using polarized light interactions to create deposit contrast, the number of deposits in ex vivo retinas predicted the severity of brain amyloid found in association with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Here we describe the effect of the potential range of corneal interactions with polarized light on the visibility of these retinal deposits when imaged in vivo . Method 52 retinal amyloid deposits, positive for thioflavin (Fig 1) and with a range of visibility in polarized light were imaged ex vivo in retinas of 12 participants with a moderate (2) or high (10) likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease, based on brain pathology. New images of each deposit were created by combining the polarized light interactions of the deposit and surrounding retina with the known range of interactions of human corneas with polarized light. The varying contrasts of each deposit with 45 different sets of corneal properties (a total of 2340 deposit images) were compared to the initial ex vivo images. Result As a function of the modelled corneal properties, the root mean square (RMS) contrast of each deposit both increased and decreased from that without a cornea (Fig 2). On average, RMS contrast across deposits combined with a cornea decreased 12% from that without a cornea. For 3% of deposit images, there was a corneal property that reduced the deposit contrast by over 50% (Fig 2). However, even in these cases, because of the variation in interaction with polarized light across the deposit (Fig 3), the deposit remained visible against the background retina. Conclusion Although the cornea interaction with polarized light will affect images of amyloid deposits in the retina taken with our non‐invasive method, all cases investigated are predicted to remain visible against the background retina. In addition, during in vivo imaging, an established method of compensating for an individual’s corneal interaction with polarized light, would guarantee 100% visibility. Thus, in vivo , our retinal imaging method is predicted to give a biomarker of the severity of amyloid in the brain found in association with Alzheimer’s disease.

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)0.000
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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207