MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408011612 · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2025.111305

Validating skin electrodes: Paving the way for non-invasive ERG use in psychiatry

2025· article· en· W4408011612 on OpenAlexaff
Marc‐André Dubois, Charles-Antoine Pelletier, Valérie Jomphe, Richard E. Bélanger, Simon Grondin, Marc Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services Sociaux
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErgElectrodeComputer scienceMedicineOphthalmologyChemistryRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroretinography (ERG) shows promise for identifying psychiatric biomarkers. The gold-standard approach relies on Dawson-Trick-Litzkow (DTL) electrodes and desktop equipment, but high costs and the expertise required for reliable electrode placement limit its implementation. This study evaluates a cost-effective alternative: a handheld ERG device paired with less invasive self-adhesive skin electrodes, which require minimal training. ERG responses to cone and rod luminance stimuli were recorded from 49 participants: 15 controls (8 women, 7 men), 18 with bipolar disorder (12 women, 6 men), and 16 with schizophrenia (4 women, 12 men). Each participant underwent ERG testing with both electrode types. Skin electrodes produced significantly smaller amplitudes and shorter latencies than DTL electrodes, except for longer scotopic b-wave latency. Women showed higher amplitudes and shorter latencies than men for both electrode types, with the photopic a-wave amplitude relative difference doubling when using skin electrodes. Reproducibility between eyes was high for both electrode types, though slightly lower for photopic a-wave with skin electrodes (ICC 0.76 vs. 0.86 for DTL). Skin electrodes paired with handheld ERG devices offer a viable, accessible alternative to traditional DTL electrodes paired with desktop equipment. This approach has the potential to expand the applicability of ERG in clinical settings by addressing barriers like cost, complexity, and invasiveness, while highlighting the need to consider sex differences in ERG assessments, particularly with skin electrodes. • ERG amplitudes are ∼60 % smaller with skin electrodes compared to DTL electrodes. • Waveform morphology remains consistent between electrode types. • Sex-specific amplitude differences are more pronounced with skin electrodes. • Skin electrodes demonstrate strong interocular reproducibility (ICC >0.75). • Skin electrodes improve accessibility of ERG for psychiatric research and care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological PsychiatrySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207