ArticlePloS one2025
Pupil responses to melanopsin-isolating stimuli as a potential diagnostic biomarker for glaucoma.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tunable dual-AAV sparse labeling of PVFrontiers in neural circuits · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test whether differences in pupil responses to melanopsin-isolating spectral stimuli in glaucoma may be useful as a diagnostic biomarker.
methodsSpectral stimuli were presented to 20 glaucoma and 15 age-similar healthy control participants. Stimuli were pairs of silent-substitution spectra designed to provide (1) equal stimulation to cone photoreceptors but maximum (~325%) contrast to melanopsin or (2) equal stimulation to melanopsin but ~325% contrast to cones. Narrowband long-wavelength/red (657 nm) and short-wavelength/blue (471 nm) pulses were also presented from a dark background to 16 glaucoma and 12 control participants. Pulses lasted 3 seconds and pupil size was measured for 15 seconds. Pupil response metrics were compared by t-test and relationships with visual field and OCT summary indices were assessed by Spearman's rank correlation. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsPupil constriction was more persistent after pulse offset for the melanopsin-directed stimulus (2% mean paired difference 6s post-pulse offset, p < 0.001). All pupil parameters were similar between groups (p = 0.04-0.90) for all stimuli. Correlations between pupil response parameters and visual field summary indices and circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness were weak (rho 0.02-0.57, all p > 0.05). Diagnostic accuracy for all pupil parameters was poor, with AUC 95% confidence intervals overlapping 0.5 for all but time to maximal constriction for the cone-directed stimulus.
conclusionsPupil responses to melanopsin-isolating spectra were similar between glaucoma and control participants. Pupillary responses to melanopsin-isolating silent substitution spectra are unlikely to be useful as a diagnostic biomarker for glaucoma.
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.