4.6 Article

Corneal Nerve Fractal Dimension: A Novel Corneal Nerve Metric for the Diagnosis of Diabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathy

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 1113-1118

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.17-23342

关键词

corneal confocal microscopy; diabetic neuropathy; image segmentation; nerve fiber quantification

资金

  1. Manchester Comprehensive Local Research Network
  2. National Institute for Health Research/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility in Manchester, National Institutes of Health [R105991]
  3. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International [27-2008-362]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), an in vivo ophthalmic imaging modality, is a noninvasive and objective imaging biomarker for identifying small nerve fiber damage. We have evaluated the diagnostic performance of previously established CCM parameters to a novel automated measure of corneal nerve complexity called the corneal nerve fiber fractal dimension (ACNFrD). METHODS. A total of 176 subjects (84 controls and 92 patients with type 1 diabetes) with and without diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) underwent CCM. Fractal dimension analysis was performed on CCM images using purpose-built corneal nerve analysis software, and compared with previously established manual and automated corneal nerve fiber measurements. RESULTS. Manual and automated subbasal corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) (P < 0.0001), length (CNFL) (P < 0.0001), branch density (CNBD) (P < 0.05), and ACNFrD (P < 0.0001) were significantly reduced in patients with DSPN compared to patients without DSPN. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for identifying DSPN were comparable: 0.77 for automated CNFD, 0.74 for automated CNFL, 0.69 for automated CNBD, and 0.74 for automated ACNFrD. CONCLUSIONS. ACNFrD shows comparable diagnostic efficiency to identify diabetic patients with and without DSPN.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据