ArticleScientific reports2025
Direct crosstalk between adult human retinas as suggested by interocular transfer of neurovascular coupling through photic stimulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Crosstalk mechanisms between retinas were never documented in humans despite being documented for several other species, including non-human primates. Results of the first-in-human study that documents the crosstalk between retinas by measuring the vascular response in one retina to the photic stimulation of the contralateral eye in health and disease are reported herein. A stimulation apparatus was developed and integrated into an adaptive-optics fundus camera to image 32 healthy control (HC) subjects and 20 type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. Ipsilateral and contralateral neurovascular coupling effects were documented, and criteria were established to consider an actual response and find positive and negative responses. Ten (31.2%) and two (6.2%) subjects of the HC group presented contralateral positive and negative responses, respectively, and three (15.0%) positive and four (20.0%) negative responses were found for the DM group. Also, statistically significant differences in the ipsilateral (p < 0.001) and contralateral (p = 0.027) responses were found for the HC group, rejecting the null (non-response) hypothesis. This finding raises the need to revisit the current knowledge of neurovascular coupling mechanisms and the association between its dysregulation and neurological disorders. Further studies involving distinct populations and imaging centers are necessary to validate the findings herein.
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.