ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Contrast Sensitivity and Equivalent Intrinsic Noise in X-Linked Retinoschisis.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Additional measures of macular function beyond visual acuity.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Spatial and Temporal Integration Abnormalities in X-Linked Retinoschisis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To define relationships among contrast sensitivity (CS), equivalent intrinsic noise (Neq; a measure of noise within the visual pathway), and retinal thickness in X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS). Methods: Nine XLRS and 10 visually-normal subjects participated. CS was measured in the presence and absence of luminance noise. These data were fit with a standard model to estimate Neq and sampling efficiency (an estimate of the ability to use stimulus information). Optical coherence tomography images were obtained to quantify outer nuclear layer (ONL+) and outer segment (OS+) thickness. A linear structure-function model was used to describe the relationship between CS and the product of ONL+ and OS+ thickness. Results: CS in the absence of noise (CS0) for the XLRS subjects ranged from normal to as much as 1.5× below the lower limit of normal. Four of the nine subjects with XLRS had abnormally high Neq, whereas two others had sampling efficiency that was borderline abnormal. Log CS0 for the subjects with XLRS was correlated significantly with log Neq (r = -0.78, P = 0.01), but not with log efficiency (r = 0.19, P = 0.63). CS0 and Neq, but not efficiency, conformed to the linear ONL+ × OS+ structure-function model. Conclusions: The XLRS subjects in this study who had elevated internal noise had abnormally low CS; both internal noise and CS fell within the predicted limits of a structure-function model. Translational Relevance: Internal noise measurements can provide insight into a source of CS loss in some individuals with XLRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.