Zhang Bing, Wang Jiajun, Wang Yalan, Jiang Yilin, Zhao Yun-E
Eye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2025 Apr;263(4):1005-1013. doi: 10.1007/s00417-024-06718-0. Epub 2024 Dec 22.
To perform association analyses between the measurements of photopic negative response (PhNR) evoked by two ISCEV protocols.
A total of 172 eyes from 72 post-operative pediatric cataract patients and 24 healthy children were enrolled. The amplitude and peak time of PhNR were analyzed in three eye groups, 1. healthy controls; 2. fellow eyes of unilaterally affected patients; 3. affected eyes. PhNR responses were measured with skin-electrodes and evoked by the ISCEV standard protocols of PhNR and light-adapted 3.0, referred to as PhNR1 and PhNR2. The correlation coefficients between PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were calculated. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model of PhNR1, with PhNR2 as a predictor, was evaluated after adjusting for correlation between paired eyes.
Both the amplitude (P = 0.025) and the peak time (P = 0.036) of PhNR1 showed a significant difference among the three eye groups, which was not observed in PhNR2. The four correlation coefficients (Pearson, Intraclass, Lin's and Kendall's) between z-score transformed PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were generally moderate: 0.52, 0.52, 0.52, 0.36 for amplitude (P < 0.001), and 0.57, 0.57, 0.57, 0.36 for peak time (P < 0.001). The amplitude of PhNR1 cannot be precisely predicted by PhNR2, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 36.7%, while the peak time of PhNR1 can be precisely predicted with a MAPE of 3.9%.
PhNR1 appears to be a more sensitive measure than PhNR2 for detecting eye group differences. Further research is needed to confirm this and explore its clinical applications. PhNR1 may not be entirely replaced by PhNR2 due to moderate correlation and low prediction precision in amplitude.
对两种国际临床视觉电生理学会(ISCEV)方案诱发的明视负反应(PhNR)测量值进行关联分析。
纳入72例小儿白内障术后患者的172只眼以及24名健康儿童。在三个眼组中分析PhNR的振幅和峰值时间,1. 健康对照组;2. 单侧患病患者的对侧眼;3. 患眼。使用皮肤电极测量PhNR反应,并由PhNR和光适应3.0的ISCEV标准方案诱发,分别称为PhNR1和PhNR2。计算PhNR1和PhNR2测量值之间的相关系数。在调整配对眼之间的相关性后,评估以PhNR2作为预测指标的PhNR1广义估计方程(GEE)模型。
PhNR1的振幅(P = 0.025)和峰值时间(P = 0.036)在三个眼组之间均显示出显著差异,而PhNR2未观察到这种差异。z分数转换后的PhNR1和PhNR2测量值之间的四个相关系数(Pearson、组内相关系数、Lin's和Kendall's)一般为中等:振幅方面分别为0.52、0.52、0.52、0.36(P < 0.001),峰值时间方面分别为0.57、0.57、0.57、0.36(P < 0.001)。PhNR2无法精确预测PhNR1的振幅,平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)为36.7%,而PhNR1的峰值时间可以精确预测,MAPE为3.9%。
对于检测眼组差异,PhNR1似乎比PhNR2更敏感。需要进一步研究来证实这一点并探索其临床应用。由于相关性中等且振幅预测精度较低,PhNR1可能不会完全被PhNR2取代。