| Literature DB >> 28231224 |
Sasha M McCorkle1, Lauren B Raine2, Billy R Hammond3, Lisa Renzi-Hammond4, Charles H Hillman5,6, Naiman A Khan7,8.
Abstract
Macular pigment optical density (MPOD)-assessed using customized heterochromatic flicker photometry (cHFP)-is related to better cognition and brain lutein among adults. However, the reliability of MPOD assessed by cHFP has not been investigated in children. We assessed inter-session reliability of MPOD using modified cHFP. 7-10-year-olds (n = 66) underwent cHFP over 2 visits using 11 examiners. Reliability was also assessed in a subsample (n = 46) with only 2 examiners. Among all participants, there was no significant difference between the two sessions (p = 0.59-session 1: 0.61 ± 0.28; session 2: 0.62 ± 0.27). There was no significant difference in the MPOD of boys vs. girls (p = 0.56). There was a significant correlation between sessions (Y = 0.52x + 0.31; R² = 0.29, p ≤ 0.005), with a reliability of 0.70 (Cronbach's α). Among the subsample with 2 examiners, there was a significant correlation between sessions (Y = 0.54x + 0.31; R² = 0.32, p < 0.005), with a reliability of 0.72 (Cronbach's α). In conclusion, there is moderate reliability for modified cHFP to measure MPOD in preadolescents. These findings provide support for future studies aiming to conduct noninvasive assessments of retinal xanthophylls and study their association with cognition during childhood.Entities:
Keywords: heterochromatic flicker photometry; macular pigment optical density; retinal lutein
Year: 2015 PMID: 28231224 PMCID: PMC5224552 DOI: 10.3390/foods4040594
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Participant characteristics separated by group.
| Characteristic | Full Sample ( | Subgroup 1 ( | Subgroup 2 ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex [ | |||
| Male | 26 (39) | 14 (70) | 12 (26) |
| Female | 40 (60) | 6 (30) | 34 (74) |
| Age (years) | 8.8 ± 0.08 | 8.7 ± 0.13 | 8.8 ± 0.11 |
Figure 1Illustration of the correlation between sessions 1 and 2 for the full sample (n = 66).
Figure 2Illustration of the correlation between sessions 1 and 2 for Subgroup 1 (11 examiners).
Figure 3Illustration of the intersession correlation between sessions 1 and 2 for Subgroup 2 (2 examiners).
Figure 4Bland–Altman Plot for the Full sample (n = 66).
Figure 5Bland–Altman Plot for the Subgroup 1 (n = 20).
Figure 6Bland–Altman Plot for Subgroup 2 (n = 46).