Relationship between automated choroidal thickness measurements and retinal sensitivity using microperimetry in patients with myopia and different stages of myopic maculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between macular choroidal thickness (CT) measurements and retinal sensitivity (RS) in eyes with myopia and different stages of myopic maculopathy. METHODS: A masked, cross-sectional, and consecutive study involving patients with emmetropia/myopia (control group) and high myopia (HM) eyes. Automated choroidal thickness (CT) and manual outer retinal layer (ORL) thickness were acquired using swept-source optical coherence tomography, while retinal sensitivity (RS) assessed by microperimetry (MP3) in all regions of the macular Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) grid. Comparisons were made between groups, and correlations were performed among these measurements, demographic and ocular parameters and myopic maculopathy classification. RESULTS: A total of 37 (74 eyes) patients were included in the study. The mean age was 39 ± 13 years, and 28 patients (76%) were female. HM eyes exhibited inferior best-corrected visual acuity and a more advanced myopic maculopathy classification compared to the control group. The mean macular CT were 255 and 179 μm in the control and HM eyes (P < 0.001), respectively. In the HM eyes, superior ETDRS region presented the greatest values. Mean RS in control and HM groups was 28 and 24 dB (P = 0.001), respectively. Inner temporal followed by superior, were the regions of higher RS. Mean ORL thickness was 83 and 79 μm (P < 0.001), in the control and HM groups, respectively. The inner temporal ETDRS region presented the thickest measure. CT correlated significantly with RS (r = 0.41, P < 0.001) and ORL thickness, (r = 0.58, P < 0.001), which also correlated with RS (r = 0.40, P < 0.001). Spherical equivalent, axial length and myopic maculopathy stage were the parameters that most correlated with CT, RS and ORL thickness. For every 100 μm increase in thickening of CT there was an average increase of 3.4 μm in ORL thickness and 2.7 dB in RS. Myopic maculopathy classification demonstrated influence only with CT. CONCLUSION: Myopia degree is related to ORL and choroidal thinning and deterioration of retinal sensitivity in some ETDRS regions of the macula. Choroidal thinning is associated to with a decline of retinal sensitivity, thinning of ORL, and worsening of myopic maculopathy classification, so new treatments are necessary to prevent myopia progression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".