the interblink interval in normal and dry eye subjects

Clicks: 148
ID: 183831
2013
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #189 of 271 articles by views in e3s web of conferences

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 271 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Patrick R Johnston,1 John Rodriguez,1 Keith J Lane,1 George Ousler,1 Mark B Abelson1,21Ora, Inc, Andover, MA, USA; 2Schepens Eye Research Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAPurpose: Our aim was to extend the concept of blink patterns from average interblink interval (IBI) to other aspects of the distribution of IBI. We hypothesized that this more comprehensive approach would better discriminate between normal and dry eye subjects.Methods: Blinks were captured over 10 minutes for ten normal and ten dry eye subjects while viewing a standardized televised documentary. Fifty-five blinks were analyzed for each of the 20 subjects. Means, standard deviations, and autocorrelation coefficients were calculated utilizing a single random effects model fit to all data points and a diagnostic model was subsequently fit to predict probability of a subject having dry eye based on these parameters.Results: Mean IBI was 5.97 seconds for normal versus 2.56 seconds for dry eye subjects (ratio: 2.33, P = 0.004). IBI variability was 1.56 times higher in normal subjects (P < 0.001), and the autocorrelation was 1.79 times higher in normal subjects (P = 0.044). With regard to the diagnostic power of these measures, mean IBI was the best dry eye versus normal classifier using receiver operating characteristics (0.85 area under curve (AUC)), followed by the standard deviation (0.75 AUC), and lastly, the autocorrelation (0.63 AUC). All three predictors combined had an AUC of 0.89. Based on this analysis, cutoffs of ≤3.05 seconds for median IBI, and ≤0.73 for the coefficient of variation were chosen to classify dry eye subjects.Conclusion: (1) IBI was significantly shorter for dry eye patients performing a visual task compared to normals; (2) there was a greater variability of interblink intervals in normal subjects; and (3) these parameters were useful as diagnostic predictors of dry eye disease. The results of this pilot study merit investigation of IBI parameters on a larger scale study in subjects with dry eye and other ocular surface disorders.Keywords: dry eye, interblink intervals, visual function, visual tasks, diagnostic model
Reference Key
pr2013clinicalthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Johnston PR;Rodriguez J;Lane KJ;Ousler G;Abelson MB
Journal e3s web of conferences
Year 2013
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.dovepress.com/the-interblink-interval-in-normal-and-dry-eye-subjects-a12107
Keywords
ophthalmology

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.