ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2025
Optimizing latency calculation for robust evaluation of the pupillary light response in chromatic pupillography.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 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.
- Model-based comparison of latency estimation methods for the pupillary light reflex.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo optimize latency calculation in chromatic pupillography for a more robust evaluation of pupillary light response (PLR) dynamics in a normative collective.
methodsThe PLR of 150 healthy participants aged 18-79 years (median 46 years, 94 females) measured by L-cone- and rod-favoring stimulation protocols in Chromatic Pupil Campimetry (CPC) was analyzed. Three calculation methods of latency to constriction onset after light stimulus were tested. 1: intersection of mean baseline pupil diameter and linear fit through the descending part of the pupillogram (20 data points) at each stimulus position in the central visual field (30°), 2: intersection of a linear fit through the baseline and linear fit using less (15) data points through the pupillary contraction phase at each stimulus position and 3: mean per eccentricity gained by averaged pupillograms. Equivalence testing (two one-sided t-tests, TOST) was used for comparison of the methods.
resultsThe longest mean latencies were found with calculation 1 in both photopic and scotopic stimulation, followed by calculation 2. Latency calculation per eccentricity (3) resulted in the shortest mean latencies. The differences in latency results of the three calculation methods increased with increasing eccentricity in both stimulation protocols. Calculation 2 and 3 were equivalent up to 12° eccentricity in photopic and up to 20° eccentricity in scotopic stimulation.
conclusionsThe use of the intersection of a linear fit through the baseline with a linear fit containing an adjusted number of data points adapted to the characteristics of the pupillary contraction phase appears to be suitable to provide consistent latency calculation, particularly for small constriction amplitudes and noisy data as they may occur in patients with e.g. hereditary retinal degenerations. The evaluation of mean latency per eccentricity is equivalent and may be advantageous in difficult clinical test results with low amplitudes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41045437What 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.