Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the well-known reproducibility issues of subjective refraction, most studies evaluating autorefractors compared differences between the device and subjective refraction. This work evaluated the performance of a novel handheld Hartmann-Shack-based autorefractor using an alternative protocol, which considered the inherent variability of subjective refraction. METHODS: Participants underwent an initial measurement with a desktop autorefractor, two subjective refractions (SR1 and SR2) and a final measurement with the QuickSee Free (QSFree) portable autorefractor. Autorefractor performance was evaluated by comparing the differences between the QSFree and each of the subjective refractions with the difference between the subjective refractions (SR1 vs. SR2) using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage of agreement. RESULTS: A total of 75 subjects (53 ± 14 years) were enrolled in the study. The average difference in the absolute spherical equivalent (M) between the QSFree and the SR1 and SR2 was ±0.24 and ±0.02 D, respectively, that is, very similar or smaller than the SR1 versus SR2 difference (±0.26 D). Average differences in astigmatic components were found to be negligible. The results demonstrate that differences between QSFree and both subjective refractions in J0 and J45 were within ±0.50 D for at least 96% of the measurements. The limits of agreement (LOAs) of the differences between QSFree and SR1, as well as QSFree and SR2, were higher than those observed between SR1 and SR2 for M, J0 and J45 . CONCLUSIONS: A protocol was designed and validated for the evaluation of a refractive device to account for the variability of subjective refraction. This protocol was used to evaluate a novel portable autorefractor and observed a smaller difference between the device and subjective refractions than the difference between the two subjective refraction measurements in terms of mean bias error, although the standard deviation was higher.

Correction: Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240933.].

Prediction of manifest refraction using machine learning ensemble models on wavefront aberrometry data.

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of machine learning (ML) ensemble models for predicting patient subjective refraction (SR) using demographic factors, wavefront aberrometry data, and measurement quality related metrics taken with a low-cost portable autorefractor. METHODS: Four ensemble models were evaluated for predicting individual power vectors (M, J0, and J45) corresponding to the eyeglass prescription of each patient. Those models were random forest regressor (RF), gradient boosting regressor (GB), extreme gradient boosting regressor (XGB), and a custom assembly model (ASB) that averages the first three models. Algorithms were trained on a dataset of 1244 samples and the predictive power was evaluated with 518 unseen samples. Variables used for the prediction were age, gender, Zernike coefficients up to 5th order, and pupil related metrics provided by the autorefractor. Agreement with SR was measured using Bland-Altman analysis, overall prediction error, and percentage of agreement between the ML predictions and subjective refractions for different thresholds (0.25 D, 0.5 D). RESULTS: All models considerably outperformed the predictions from the autorefractor, while ASB obtained the best results. The accuracy of the predictions for each individual power vector component was substantially improved resulting in a ± 0.63 D, ±0.14D, and ±0.08 D reduction in the 95% limits of agreement of the error distribution for M, J0, and J45, respectively. The wavefront-aberrometry related variables had the biggest impact on the prediction, while demographic and measurement quality-related features showed a heterogeneous but consistent predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ML is effective for improving precision in predicting patient's SR from objective measurements taken with a low-cost portable device.

Predicting subjective refraction with dynamic retinal image quality analysis.

The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of a novel algorithm that combines dynamic wavefront aberrometry data and descriptors of the retinal image quality from objective autorefractor measurements to predict subjective refraction. We conducted a retrospective study of the prediction accuracy and precision of the novel algorithm compared to standard search-based retinal image quality optimization algorithms. Dynamic measurements from 34 adult patients were taken with a handheld wavefront autorefractor and static data was obtained with a high-end desktop wavefront aberrometer. The search-based algorithms did not significantly improve the results of the desktop system, while the dynamic approach was able to simultaneously reduce the standard deviation (up to a 15% for reduction of spherical equivalent power) and the mean bias error of the predictions (up to 80% reduction of spherical equivalent power) for the handheld aberrometer. These results suggest that dynamic retinal image analysis can substantially improve the accuracy and precision of the portable wavefront autorefractor relative to subjective refraction.

Investigation of the Accuracy of a Low-Cost, Portable Autorefractor to Provide Well-Tolerated Eyeglass Prescriptions: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare patient preferences for eyeglasses prescribed using a low-cost, portable wavefront autorefractor versus standard subjective refraction (SR). DESIGN: Randomized, cross-over clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 to 40 years presenting with refractive errors (REs) to a tertiary eye hospital in Southern India. METHODS: Participants underwent SR followed by autorefraction (AR) using the monocular version of the QuickSee device (PlenOptika Inc). An independent optician, masked to the refraction approach, prepared eyeglasses based on each refraction approach. Participants (masked to refraction source) were randomly assigned to use SR- or AR-based eyeglasses first, followed by the other pair, for 1 week each. At the end of each week, participants had their vision checked and were interviewed about their experience with the eyeglasses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients preferring eyeglasses were chosen using AR and SR. RESULTS: The 400 participants enrolled between March 26, 2018, and August 2, 2019, had a mean (standard deviation) age of 28.4 (6.6) years, and 68.8% were women. There was a strong correlation between spherical equivalents using SR and AR (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with a mean difference of -0.07 diopters (D) (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -0.68 to 0.83). Of the 301 patients (75.2%) who completed both follow-up visits, 50.5% (n = 152) and 49.5% (n = 149) preferred glasses prescribed using SR and AR, respectively (95% CI, 45.7-56.3; P = 0.86). There were no differences in demographic or vision characteristics between participants with different preferences (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a strong agreement between the prescriptions from SR and AR, and eyeglasses prescribed using SR and AR were equally preferred by patients. Wider use of prescribing based on AR alone in resource-limited settings is supported by these findings.

Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children.

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of an open-view binocular handheld aberrometer (QuickSee) for diagnosing refractive errors in children. METHODS: 123 school-age children (9.9 ± 3.3 years) with moderate refractive error underwent autorefraction (AR) with a standard desktop device and subjective refraction (SR), with or without cycloplegia to determine their eyeglass prescription. Measurements with QuickSee (QS) were taken in 62 of these patients without cycloplegia (NC), and in 61 under cycloplegia (C). Differences in refraction values (AR vs SR vs QS) as well as the visual acuity (VA) achieved by the patients with each method (QS vs SR) were used to evaluate the performance of the device in measuring refractive error. RESULTS: The spherical equivalent refraction obtained by QS agreed within 0.5 D of the SR in 71% (NC) and 70% (C) of the cases. Agreement between the desktop autorefractor and SR for the same threshold was of 61% (NC) and 77% (C). VA resulting from QS refractions was equal to or better than that achieved by SR procedure in 77% (NC) and 74% (C) of the patients. Average improvement in VA with the QS refractions was of 8.6 and 13.4 optotypes for the NC and C groups respectively, while the SR procedure provided average improvements of 8.9 (NC) and 14.8 (C) optotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The high level of agreement between QuickSee and subjective refraction together with the VA improvement achieved in both study groups using QuickSee refractions suggest that the device is a useful autorefraction tool for school-age children.

Beneficial effects of paricalcitol on cardiac dysfunction and remodelling in a model of established heart failure.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The synthetic vitamin D3 analogue paricalcitol acts as a selective activator of the vitamin D receptor (VDR). While there is evidence for cardioprotective effects of paricalcitol associated with the VDR pathway, less information is available about the structural and functional cardiac effects of paricalcitol on established heart failure (HF) and particularly its effects on associated electrophysiological or Ca2+ handling remodelling. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used a murine model of transverse aortic constriction (TAC) to study the effect of paricalcitol on established HF. Treatment was initiated 4 weeks after surgery over five consecutive weeks, and mice were sacrificed 9 weeks after surgery. Cardiac MRI (CMRI) was performed 4 and 9 weeks after surgery. Hearts were used for biochemical and histological studies and to isolate ventricular myocytes for electrophysiological and calcium imaging studies. KEY RESULTS: CMRI analysis revealed that, compared with vehicle, paricalcitol treatment prevented the progression of ventricular dilation and hypertrophy after TAC and halted the corresponding decline in ejection fraction. These beneficial effects were related to the attenuation of intracellular Ca2+ mishandling remodelling, antifibrotic and antihypertrophic effects and potentially antiarrhythmic effects by preventing the reduction of K+ current density and the long QT, JT and TpTe intervals observed in HF animals. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest that paricalcitol treatment in established HF hampers disease progression and improves adverse electrophysiological and Ca2+ handling remodelling, attenuating the vulnerability to HF-associated ventricular arrhythmias. Paricalcitol may emerge as a potential therapeutic option in the treatment of HF.

Validation of an Affordable Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor.

SIGNIFICANCE: There is a critical need for tools that increase the accessibility of eye care to address the most common cause of vision impairment: uncorrected refractive errors. This work assesses the performance of an affordable autorefractor, which could help reduce the burden of this health care problem in low-resource communities. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate the commercial version of a portable wavefront autorefractor for measuring refractive errors. METHODS: Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using (1) a standard clinical procedure consisting of an objective measurement with a desktop autorefractor followed by subjective refraction (SR) and (2) with the handheld autorefractor. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and by comparing the visual acuity (VA) with trial frames set to the resulting measurements. RESULTS: The study was conducted on 54 patients (33.9 ± 14.1 years of age) with a spherical equivalent (M) refraction determined by SR ranging from -7.25 to 4.25 D (mean ± SD, -0.93 ± 1.95 D). Mean differences between the portable autorefractor and SR were 0.09 ± 0.39, -0.06 ± 0.13, and 0.02 ± 0.12 D for M, J0, and J45, respectively. The device agreed within 0.5 D of SR in 87% of the eyes for spherical equivalent power. The average VAs achieved from trial lenses set to the wavefront autorefractor and SR results were 0.02 ± 0.015 and 0.015 ± 0.042 logMAR units, respectively. Visual acuity resulting from correction based on the device was the same as or better than that achieved by SR in 87% of the eyes. CONCLUSIONS: This study found excellent agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor and the prescriptions based on SR and only small differences between the VA achieved by either method.

Quality of eyeglass prescriptions from a low-cost wavefront autorefractor evaluated in rural India: results of a 708-participant field study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of eyeglass prescriptions provided by an affordable wavefront autorefractor operated by a minimally trained technician in a low-resource setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 708 participants were recruited from consecutive patients registered for routine eye examinations at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India, or an affiliated rural satellite vision centre. Visual acuity (VA) and patient preference were compared between trial lenses set to two eyeglass prescriptions from (1) a novel wavefront autorefractor and (2) subjective refraction by an experienced refractionist. RESULTS: The mean±SD VA was 0.30±0.37, -0.02±0.14 and -0.04±0.11 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units before correction, with autorefractor correction and with subjective refraction correction, respectively (all differences p<0.01). Overall, 25% of participants had no preference, 33% preferred eyeglass prescriptions from autorefraction, and 42% preferred eyeglass prescriptions from subjective refraction (p<0.01). Of the 438 patients 40 years old and younger, 96 had no preference and the remainder had no statistically significant difference in preference for subjective refraction prescriptions (51%) versus autorefractor prescriptions (49%) (p=0.52). CONCLUSION: Average VAs from autorefractor-prescribed eyeglasses were one letter worse than those from subjective refraction. More than half of all participants either had no preference or preferred eyeglasses prescribed by the autorefractor. This marginal difference in quality may warrant autorefractor-based prescriptions, given the portable form factor, short measurement time, low cost and minimal training required to use the autorefractor evaluated here.

Tunable lenses: dynamic characterization and fine-tuned control for high-speed applications.

Tunable lenses are becoming ubiquitous, in applications including microscopy, optical coherence tomography, computer vision, quality control, and presbyopic corrections. Many applications require an accurate control of the optical power of the lens in response to a time-dependent input waveform. We present a fast focimeter (3.8 KHz) to characterize the dynamic response of tunable lenses, which was demonstrated on different lens models. We found that the temporal response is repetitive and linear, which allowed the development of a robust compensation strategy based on the optimization of the input wave, using a linear time-invariant model. To our knowledge, this work presents the first procedure for a direct characterization of the transient response of tunable lenses and for compensation of their temporal distortions, and broadens the potential of tunable lenses also in high-speed applications.

Design and Clinical Evaluation of a Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor.

PURPOSE: To introduce a novel autorefractor design that is intended to be manufacturable at low cost and evaluate its performance in measuring refractive errors. METHODS: We developed a handheld, open-view autorefractor (the "QuickSee" [QS]) that uses a simplified approach to wavefront sensing that forgoes moving parts and expensive components. Adult subjects (n = 41) were recruited to undergo noncycloplegic refraction with three methods: (1) a QS prototype, (2) a Grand Seiko WR-5100K (GS) autorefractor, and (3) subjective refraction (SR). Agreements between the QS and GS were evaluated using a Bland-Altman analysis. The accuracy of both autorefractors was evaluated using SR as the clinical gold standard. RESULTS: The spherical equivalent powers measured from both autorefractors correlate well with SR, with identical correlation coefficients of r = 0.97. Both autorefractors also agree well with each other, with a spherical equivalent power 95% confidence interval of ±0.84 diopters (D). The difference between the accuracy of each objective device is not statistically significant for any component of the power vector (p = 0.55, 0.41, and 0.18, for M, J0, and J45, respectively). The spherical and cylindrical powers measured by the GS agree within 0.25 D of the SR in 49 and 82% of the eyes, respectively, whereas the spherical and cylindrical powers measured by the QS agree within 0.25 D of the SR in 74 and 87% of the eyes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prototype autorefractor exhibits equivalent performance to the GS autorefractor in matching power vectors measured by SR.

Recovery and normalization of triple coincidences in PET.

PURPOSE: Triple coincidences in positron emission tomography (PET) are events in which three γ-rays are detected simultaneously. These events, though potentially useful for enhancing the sensitivity of PET scanners, are discarded or processed without special consideration in current systems, because there is not a clear criterion for assigning them to a unique line-of-response (LOR). Methods proposed for recovering such events usually rely on the use of highly specialized detection systems, hampering general adoption, and/or are based on Compton-scatter kinematics and, consequently, are limited in accuracy by the energy resolution of standard PET detectors. In this work, the authors propose a simple and general solution for recovering triple coincidences, which does not require specialized detectors or additional energy resolution requirements. METHODS: To recover triple coincidences, the authors' method distributes such events among their possible LORs using the relative proportions of double coincidences in these LORs. The authors show analytically that this assignment scheme represents the maximum-likelihood solution for the triple-coincidence distribution problem. The PET component of a preclinical PET/CT scanner was adapted to enable the acquisition and processing of triple coincidences. Since the efficiencies for detecting double and triple events were found to be different throughout the scanner field-of-view, a normalization procedure specific for triple coincidences was also developed. The effect of including triple coincidences using their method was compared against the cases of equally weighting the triples among their possible LORs and discarding all the triple events. The authors used as figures of merit for this comparison sensitivity, noise-equivalent count (NEC) rates and image quality calculated as described in the NEMA NU-4 protocol for the assessment of preclinical PET scanners. RESULTS: The addition of triple-coincidence events with the authors' method increased peak NEC rates of the scanner by 26.6% and 32% for mouse- and rat-sized objects, respectively. This increase in NEC-rate performance was also reflected in the image-quality metrics. Images reconstructed using double and triple coincidences recovered using their method had better signal-to-noise ratio than those obtained using only double coincidences, while preserving spatial resolution and contrast. Distribution of triple coincidences using an equal-weighting scheme increased apparent system sensitivity but degraded image quality. The performance boost provided by the inclusion of triple coincidences using their method allowed to reduce the acquisition time of standard imaging procedures by up to ∼25%. CONCLUSIONS: Recovering triple coincidences with the proposed method can effectively increase the sensitivity of current clinical and preclinical PET systems without compromising other parameters like spatial resolution or contrast.

From unseen to seen: tackling the global burden of uncorrected refractive errors.

Worldwide, more than one billion people suffer from poor vision because they do not have the eyeglasses they need. Their uncorrected refractive errors are a major cause of global disability and drastically reduce productivity, educational opportunities, and overall quality of life. The problem persists most prevalently in low-resource settings, even though prescription eyeglasses serve as a simple, effective, and largely affordable solution. In this review, we discuss barriers to obtaining, and approaches for providing, refractive eye care. We also highlight emerging technologies that are being developed to increase the accessibility of eye care. Finally, we describe opportunities that exist for engineers to develop new solutions to positively impact the diagnosis and treatment of correctable refractive errors in low-resource settings.

NEMA NU 4-2008 comparison of preclinical PET imaging systems.

UNLABELLED: The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for performance measurements of small-animal tomographs was recently published. Before this standard, there were no standard testing procedures for preclinical PET systems, and manufacturers could not provide clear specifications similar to those available for clinical systems under NEMA NU 2-1994 and 2-2001. Consequently, performance evaluation papers used methods that were modified ad hoc from the clinical PET NEMA standard, thus making comparisons between systems difficult. METHODS: We acquired NEMA NU 4-2008 performance data for a collection of commercial animal PET systems manufactured since 2000: microPET P4, microPET R4, microPET Focus 120, microPET Focus 220, Inveon, ClearPET, Mosaic HP, Argus (formerly eXplore Vista), VrPET, LabPET 8, and LabPET 12. The data included spatial resolution, counting-rate performance, scatter fraction, sensitivity, and image quality and were acquired using settings for routine PET. RESULTS: The data showed a steady improvement in system performance for newer systems as compared with first-generation systems, with notable improvements in spatial resolution and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Variation in system design makes direct comparisons between systems from different vendors difficult. When considering the results from NEMA testing, one must also consider the suitability of the PET system for the specific imaging task at hand.