ライフサイエンスコーパス: mfERG

1 mfERG abnormalities were defined as z-scores of 2 or mor

2 mfERG amplitudes had no predictive power.

3 mfERG and fundus photographs were measured in both eyes

4 mfERG implicit times (IT) and amplitudes (AMP) were deri

5 mfERG implicit times tended to be more delayed at follow

6 mfERG implicit times were derived at 103 locations using

7 mfERG IT is a good predictor of DR onset, 1 year later,

8 mfERG ITs were not predictive of transient retinopathy.

9 mfERG P1 latencies were delayed, and amplitudes (nV/deg(

10 mfERG responses represent postreceptor retinal activity.

11 mfERG was found to have a sensitivity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.

12 mfERG z-scores were mapped onto fundus photographs, and

13 mfERGs and fundus photographs were obtained from 28 eyes

14 mfERGs of 16 individuals with glaucoma (POAG) and 18 nor

15 mfERGs showed loss of high-frequency components (HFCs) f

16 mfERGs were recorded from pigmented and albino rats by s

17 In infants (n = 23) and adults (n = 10), mfERG responses to both unscaled and scaled 61 hexagon a

18 different between Normal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups (P-Value> 0.05).

19 different between Normal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups (P-Value> 0.05).

20 were divided into Normal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups based on mfERG results.

21 ally significant between the groups Abnormal mfERG and Normal mfERG.

22 Forty patients (66.7%) had Abnormal mfERG.

23 in SCP layer in PeriFovea region in Abnormal mfERG group was significantly lower than normal group (P

24 i, Inferior Hemi, PeriFovea area in Abnormal mfERG group was significantly lower than normal group (P

25 VD in the DCP layer decreased in abnormal mfERG patients compared to patients with normal mfERG.

26 terocular spatial correspondence of abnormal mfERG responses exists in adolescents with type 1 diabet

27 lected from a larger group based on abnormal mfERG amplitudes covering a diameter of 20 degrees or gr

28 ar correspondence of locations with abnormal mfERG AMP was also significant (P < 0.0002).

29 ar correspondence of locations with abnormal mfERG IT was significant for all 15 patients (P values <

30 No toxicity was detected by adding mfERG or SD-OCT.

31 The mfERG Amp, mfERG IT, SBP, and sex were together predictive of edema

32 threshold (P = 0.0003), BCVA (P = 0.01), and mfERG amplitude (P = 0.008).

33 preferred screening modalities, with FAF and mfERG less frequently ordered.

34 nd multifocal electroretinography (ffERG and mfERG), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD

35 n funduscopic examination, visual field, and mfERG.

36 f different objective tests, such as MP1 and mfERG over a six-month follow-up.

37 rom the fovea (P < .05); abnormal SD OCT and mfERG values with respect to controls were found in corr

38 aminations, including fundus photographs and mfERG testing, were performed at each visit.

39 NFLT during one week and RNFL retardance and mfERG the next week.

40 RNFL retardance and mfERG were significantly reduced in the recordings just

41 Correspondence between SD-OCT thinning and mfERG abnormalities was shown in 67% of the eyes with ET

42 ral domain optical coherence tomography, and mfERG testing.

43 0-2 visual field mean deviation [VFMD]), and mfERG testing.

44 l associations between retinal thickness and mfERGs were not significant within any subject group or

45 e rod-mediated psychophysical thresholds and mfERGs were within normal limits.

46 The age-associated mfERG alterations are presented to emphasize the importa

47 r 1 year in the areas with abnormal baseline mfERG implicit times was approximately 21 times greater

48 pment of retinopathy in relation to baseline mfERG IT delays and additional diabetic health variables

49 Multivariate analyses yielded baseline mfERG IT, duration of diabetes, and blood glucose concen

50 than that in the areas with normal baseline mfERGs (odds ratio = 31.4; P < 0.001).

51 Associations between mfERG and age, duration, and diabetes control were exami

52 We conclude that there is a link between mfERG and SD-OCT measurements that increases with the pr

53 gitudinally whether the relationship between mfERG IT and diabetes control exists within individual a

54 presence of hydroxychloroquine as defined by mfERG testing.

55 hydroxychloroquine toxicity as identified by mfERG, and thus may be suitable surrogate tests.

56 rved cone photoreceptor function measured by mfERG amplitude and visual field sensitivity correlate w

57 nal abnormalities of the retina reflected by mfERG delays often precede the onset of new structural s

58 en with delays, in regions showing decreased mfERG responses and visual field sensitivity loss.

59 The 45 degrees mfERG stimulus included 103 hexagons, reversing between

60 Area under the curve (AUC) for each mfERG parameter and the sensitivity and specificity of m

61 ckness showed less relative loss than either mfERG or visual field sensitivity.

62 threshold, and multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) amplitude and timing.

63 icits; (4) The Multifocal Electroretinogram (mfERG) and the Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential (mfVEP

64 f the standard multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) are preferentially affected by diabetes mellitus.

65 The multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) can provide objective corroboration for visual fi

66 velopment and: multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) implicit time (IT) Z-score, mfERG amplitude (Amp)

67 al first-order multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) implicit time (K1-IT) delays have proved to be im

68 Multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) provides evidence of focal retinal dysfunction re

69 commonly used multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) stimuli, as well as the standard transient patter

70 gical success, multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG), and histopathologic analyses performed between 3

71 inopathy using multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG).

72 y evidenced by multifocal-electroretinogram (mfERG) and microperimetry (MP1) after treatment with Ocr

73 fields (VFs), multifocal electroretinograms (mfERG), and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography

74 Multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs) and psychophysical assessments of acuity and lum

75 Multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs) were obtained from 62 normally sighted subjects

76 and scotopic multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs) were recorded.

77 derived from multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs).

78 cone-mediated multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs).

79 (SD-OCT) and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) along with visual fields.

80 photography, multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) and HbA(1C) assessment.

81 imetry, with multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) being a recognized but less accessible method.

82 l studies by multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) evaluated neurodysfunction, and structural measur

83 y (OCT), and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) were performed at baseline and 12 time points (1-

84 SD-OCT), and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) were performed at various intervals.

85 thy based on Multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) with a group who do not have retinopathy.

86 sual fields, multifocal electroretinography (mfERG), and contrast sensitivity were measured in all su

87 s (10-2 VF), multifocal electroretinography (mfERG), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD

88 up including multifocal electroretinography (mfERG), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD

89 ce (FAF), or multifocal electroretinography (mfERG).

90 testing, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG).

91 ardance, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG).

92 The revised guidelines, emphasizing mfERG, SD-OCT, or FAF, raised screening cost without imp

93 survival were assessed with multifocal ERG (mfERG) and histology 1 week after PDT.

94 R development and 7 factors: multifocal ERG (mfERG) implicit time (IT) Z-score, sex, diabetes duratio

95 vestigate temporal trends in multifocal ERG (mfERG) parameters and analyze their relationships with a

96 g electroretinography (ERG), multifocal ERG (mfERG), perimetry, optical coherence tomography (OCT), f

97 In the four treated eyes mfERG revealed an increased foveal peak response over th

98 es:BEST1 mutations, SD-OCT and FAF findings, mfERG amplitudes, prevalence estimate of Best disease.

99 -adapted flash ERG, 103-hexagon global-flash mfERG (MFOFO), and static perimetry.

100 ns between regional measures of global-flash mfERG, RNFLT, and VS suggest that LFC RMS amplitude prov

101 asured locally by OCT is not a surrogate for mfERGs in early diabetes.

102 ed models, particularly those utilizing full mfERG traces, demonstrated superior predictive power for

103 mfERG, a model of the waveform of the human mfERG is proposed.

104 The waveform of the human mfERG most closely resembles the rhesus monkey's mfERG a

105 In comparison, the human mfERG resembles the monkey's mfERG after reduction of in

106 Damage was identified by OCT imaging, mfERG testing, and, in 1 case, visual field testing.

107 ection before a second round of PDT improved mfERG responses and retinal structure.

108 th ETDRS 20-35 presented no abnormalities in mfERG or SD-OCT.

109 Progressive deterioration in mfERG during a 5-year period is detected in BSCR, wherea

110 function showed little or no disturbance in mfERG recordings.

111 These included mfERGs for three different stimuli: a standard fast m-se

112 following a baseline examination, including mfERG, visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF), Lanthony d

113 The infants' mfERG responses indicated immaturities of processing in

114 Local mfERG implicit times were measured and their z-scores we

115 implicit times (ITs) were derived from local mfERG response waveforms, and Z-scores were calculated.

116 The inclusion of local mfERG implicit times allowed the model to identify the s

117 Mean mfERG IT was significantly longer in the patients compar

118 Cone-mediated mfERG measures of amplitude scale and time scale were ab

119 em visual field thresholds and cone-mediated mfERGs.

120 thresholds (visual fields) and rod-mediated mfERGs.

121 uency bands were discriminated in the monkey mfERG: fast OPs, with a peak frequency of 143 +/- 20 Hz,

122 Monkey mfERGs were obtained before and after inner retinal resp

123 The monkey mfERGs were recorded before and after injections of phar

124 ose (BG) concentration, HbA1c, and monocular mfERG were performed on 115 adolescent patients (mean ag

125 Noninvasive monocular mfERGs were recorded in anesthetized albino (Sprague-Daw

126 ponding to markedly reduced or nonrecordable mfERG responses.

127 l-inner plexiform layer thickness and normal mfERG findings.

128 between the groups Abnormal mfERG and Normal mfERG.

129 s not significantly different between Normal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups (P-Value> 0.05).

130 s not significantly different between Normal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups (P-Value> 0.05).

131 Patients were divided into Normal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups based on mfERG results.

132 RG patients compared to patients with normal mfERG.

133 The longitudinal analysis of mfERG data shows a significant increase of N1 and P1 amp

134 r loss in the low-frequency (<25 Hz) band of mfERG.

135 e P50 component and substantial reduction of mfERG high-frequency components.

136 These results propose a valuable role of mfERG in evaluating the expected neuroretinal dysfunctio

137 This study suggests a better sensitivity of mfERG in monitoring the retinal function of BSCR patient

138 The pooled sensitivity and specificity of mfERG were 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.98)

139 meter and the sensitivity and specificity of mfERG were calculated.

140 evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of mfERG when compared with automated visual fields (AVFs),

141 ed a search for records reporting the use of mfERG for screening CQ/HCQ retinopathy in MEDLINE (PubMe

142 ropriate normative data in interpretation of mfERGs.

143 amplitude (AMP) and P1 implicit time (IT) of mfERGs within the central approximately 20 degrees diame

144 19) and unaffected (n = 38) groups based on mfERG criteria.

145 icted by using a multivariate model based on mfERG implicit time.

146 mal mfERG and Abnormal mfERG groups based on mfERG results.

147 high sensitivity of parafoveal depression on mfERG and its relationship to cumulative and daily dose

148 nal functional alterations are detectable on mfERG in patients with longer diabetes duration, but wit

149 The effects of experimental glaucoma on mfERG were assessed in the frequency domain.

150 logic dysfunction is detected objectively on mfERG before structural change on spectral domain optica

151 In 58% of patients, mfERG abnormalities were present in the absence of visib

152 Photopic mfERGs were recorded with Dawson-Trick-Litzkow (DTL) fib

153 es or ring ratios were considered a positive mfERG result.

154 ference test, patients with a false-positive mfERG result received higher HCQ cumulative doses (1068

155 logy guidelines, and 39 (32.5%) had positive mfERG findings.

156 he performance of AI models that utilize raw mfERG time-series signals against models using conventio

157 with a normal or subnormal ERG, but reduced mfERG.

158 Our study showed reduced mfERG N1-P1 amplitude and delayed P1-implicit time india

159 nd the combination of BDNF and CNTF reducing mfERG responses.

160 Across all ring eccentricities, relative mfERG amplitude and relative visual field sensitivity we

161 Commonly reported mfERG methods were used to quantify the responses: peak-

162 Within each patient with RP, mfERG amplitude for each circle/annulus was highly corre

163 G most closely resembles the rhesus monkey's mfERG after administration of TTX.

164 ison, the human mfERG resembles the monkey's mfERG after reduction of inner retinal contributions.

165 g the inner retinal influences, the monkey's mfERG is mainly composed of ON- and OFF-bipolar contribu

166 The monkey's mfERG is shaped by large contributions from ON- and OFF-

167 the pharmacologic dissection of the monkey's mfERG, a model of the waveform of the human mfERG is pro

168 moves a large contribution from the monkey's mfERG, but it does not remove all inner retinal influenc

169 Static automated perimetry (SAP), mfERGs, and mfVEPs were obtained from 15 individuals see

170 tinogram (mfERG) implicit time (IT) Z-score, mfERG amplitude (Amp) Z-score, sex, diabetes duration, d

171 The slow-sequence mfERG summed over the stimulated area looked similar to

172 st easily detected using the slowed-sequence mfERG.

173 Photopic slow-sequence mfERGs were recorded from anesthetized adult macaque mon

174 component changes were examined using the sf-mfERG in diabetic subjects with and without diabetic ret

175 ut NPDR can be detected and mapped by the sf-mfERG.

176 Slow-flash multifocal electroretinograms (sf-mfERGs) were recorded from the central 45 degrees, and s

177 Later components (P1 and N2) of the local sf-mfERGs were not preferentially affected by diabetes.

178 ents and the amplitude of the first-order sf-mfERGs were examined.

179 The slow-flash (sf-)mfERG stimulates with flashes separated by dark periods,

180 Multivariate analysis showed mfERG IT to be predictive for DR development in a zone a

181 tern deviation plots), SD-OCT, and sometimes mfERG or fundus autofluorescence.

182 The summed mfERG waveform, including OPs, was shaped mainly by the

183 mfERG was verified against AVF suggests that mfERG may have the ability to detect cases of toxicity e

184 The mfERG Amp, mfERG IT, SBP, and sex were together predicti

185 The mfERG low-frequency components were slightly larger than

186 The mfERG P1 amplitude was more sensitive than the P1 implic

187 The mfERG stimulus was comprised of 103 hexagons, and subten

188 The mfERG waveforms were consistent with inner but not outer

189 We analyze the mfERG data, comparing the performance of AI models that

190 and higher-order kernels resulting from the mfERG contain detailed information regarding the nonline

191 f 35 retinal zones were constructed from the mfERG elements and each was graded for DE.

192 nning 45 degrees , were constructed from the mfERG stimulus elements.

193 Reductions of the mfERG amplitude, followed by varying degrees of recovery

194 eased amplitudes relative to baseline of the mfERG high-frequency components (-65%, P = 0.018), the P

195 llow-up examination was modeled based on the mfERG implicit time z-score for the zone and other candi

196 eld, photopic ERG most closely resembles the mfERG responses to stimulation of peripheral regions.

197 After administration of TTX, the mfERG is further modified by the addition of NMDA.

198 In these eyes, 70% of the mfERGs in areas of new retinopathy had abnormal implicit

199 At each time, mfERGs were recorded from 103 retinal locations, and fun

200 nontreated area showed amplitude and timing mfERG deficits, which underwent gradual (but not complet

201 Retinal thickness was compared to mfERGs to determine spatial associations.

202 Together mfERG, SBP, and sex are good predictors of local edema i

203 ex were eligible for our study and underwent mfERG.

204 We used mfERG test parameters as a gold standard to divide parti

205 ted the feasibility and limitations of using mfERG to assess topographical changes in the rat retina.

206 tive model was formulated with the variables mfERG implicit time, duration of diabetes, presence of r

207 were 25, 22, 41, and 37 months for 10-2 VF, mfERG, SD-OCT, and FAF, respectively.

208 ogression were 17, 8, 16, and 9 for 10-2 VF, mfERG, SD-OCT, and FAF, respectively.

209 were 16/20, 0/5, 10/17, and 5/5 for 10-2 VF, mfERG, SD-OCT, and FAF, respectively.

210 ed were 4/6, 0/6, 2/15, and 3/7 for 10-2 VF, mfERG, SD-OCT, and FAF, respectively.

211 sed were 0/0, 3/5, 0/0, and 2/6 for 10-2 VF, mfERG, SD-OCT, and FAF, respectively.

212 p compared with the true-negative group when mfERG was verified against AVF suggests that mfERG may h

213 lipsoid zone in the central 7 degrees, while mfERG response amplitudes were reduced only in the centr