| Literature DB >> 32934893 |
Ioannis N Petropoulos1, Abdulrahman Al-Mohammedi1, Xin Chen2, Maryam Ferdousi3, Georgios Ponirakis1, Harriet Kemp4, Reena Chopra5, Scott Hau5, Marc Schargus6, Jan Vollert4,7, Dietrich Sturm8, Tina Bharani1, Christopher Kleinschnitz9, Mark Stettner9, Tunde Peto10, Christoph Maier11, Andrew S C Rice4, Rayaz A Malik1.
Abstract
Purpose: Quantification of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) images has shown a significant reduction in corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) in a range of peripheral neuropathies. We assessed whether corneal nerve fractal dimension (CNFrD) analysis, a novel metric to quantify the topological complexity of corneal subbasal nerves, can differentiate peripheral neuropathies of different etiology.Entities:
Keywords: corneal confocal microscopy; fractals; peripheral neuropathy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32934893 PMCID: PMC7463182 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.9.43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.(Top row) Original CCM images from a HC (A) and from patients with HIV-SN (B), CIPN (C), CIDP (D), and DPN (E). (Middle row) Corresponding images analyzed with CCMetrics for estimation of CNFD (red), CNBD (green dots), and CNFL (red and blue) in HCs (F) and in patients with HIV-SN (G), CIPN (H), CIDP (I), or DPN (J). (Bottom row) Images analyzed for estimation of the novel metric CNFrD in HCs (CNFrD = 1.55) (K), HIV-SN (CNFrD = 1.5) (L), CIPN (CNFrD = 1.51) (M), CIDP (CNFrD = 1.45) (N), and DPN (CNFrD = 1.41) (O). Although CNFD and CNFL were significantly reduced in groups of patients compared to HCs, the underlying morphology assessed by CNFrD also appears significantly altered compared to HCs and among groups of patients.
Figure 2.(A) Original CMM image, (B) detected nerve fibers using a machine learning method, and (C) CNFrD calculation using the box counting method.
Demographic and CCM Parameter Results
| Mean | SD | HC ( | HIV-SN ( | CIPN ( | CIDP ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | ||||||
| HC | 54.5 | 11.2 | ||||
| HIV-SN | 57.7 | 7.8 | 0.99 | |||
| CIPN | 63.8 | 10.0 | 0.06 | — | ||
| CIDP | 59.2 | 14.8 | 0.52 | — | — | |
| DPN | 58.5 | 12.0 | 0.71 | — | — | — |
| CNFD (fibers/mm2) | ||||||
| HC | 39.4 | 6.7 | ||||
| HIV-SN | 26.7 | 4.2 | <0.0001 | |||
| CIPN | 29.5 | 5.5 | 0.004 | 0.99 | ||
| CIDP | 25.1 | 7.7 | <0.0001 | 0.79 | 0.55 | |
| DPN | 17.4 | 9.9 | <0.0001 | 0.002 | <0.0001 | 0.001 |
| CNBD (branches/mm2) | ||||||
| HC | 95.9 | 40.2 | ||||
| HIV-SN | 74.0 | 22.0 | 0.6 | |||
| CIPN | 73.6 | 43.3 | 0.61 | 0.99 | ||
| CIDP | 80.3 | 40.2 | 0.77 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| DPN | 45.7 | 31.7 | <0.0001 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.003 |
| CNFL (mm/mm2) | ||||||
| HC | 27.3 | 4.7 | ||||
| HIV-SN | 22.2 | 3.4 | 0.16 | |||
| CIPN | 21.3 | 5.0 | 0.05 | 0.99 | ||
| CIDP | 19.4 | 6.0 | 0.0001 | 0.8 | 0.98 | |
| DPN | 14.6 | 8.2 | <0.0001 | 0.002 | 0.0133 | 0.02 |
| CNFrD (unitless) | ||||||
| HC | 1.51 | 0.02 | ||||
| HIV-SN | 1.51 | 0.02 | 0.99 | |||
| CIPN | 1.50 | 0.03 | 0.99 | 0.99 | ||
| CIDP | 1.46 | 0.04 | 0.0009 | 0.02 | 0.12 | |
| DPN | 1.40 | 0.08 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.001 |
| ACNFrD (unitless) | ||||||
| HC | 18.0 | 3.0 | ||||
| HIV-SN | 14.7 | 2.2 | 0.07 | |||
| CIPN | 14.2 | 3.1 | 0.03 | 0.79 | ||
| CIDP | 13.4 | 4.0 | 0.0007 | 0.67 | 0.78 | |
| DPN | 10.2 | 5.3 | <0.0001 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
P < 0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 3.Box and whisker plots of corneal nerve morphology parameters in controls and neuropathy groups. The box represents the mean (solid line) with 25th and 75th percentiles; whiskers represent 5th and 95th percentiles for CNFD (A), CNBD (B), CNFL (C), CNFrD (D), and the CNFL/CNFrD ratio (ACNFrD) (E), with black circles representing outliers in the sample. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare between groups.