Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Test-retest reliability and short-term variability of quantitative light reflex pupillometry in a mixed memory clinic cohort
Gramkow MH, Clemmensen FK, Waldemar G, Hasselbalch SG, Frederiksen KS.. Journal of the neurological sciences, 2023-12-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Quantitative light reflex pupillometry (qLRP) may be a promising digital biomarker in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), as neuropathological changes have been found in the midbrain structures governing the light reflex. Studies investigating test-retest reliability and short-term, intra-subject variability of qLRP in these patient groups are missing. Our objective was therefore to investigate the test-retest reliability and short-term, intra-subject variability of qLRP in a memory clinic setting, where patients with neurodegenerative disease are frequently evaluated. Methods Test-retest reliability study. We recruited patients from a tertiary memory clinic and qLRP was carried out at a baseline visit and then repeated on day 3-14 and on day 21-35 using a hand-held pupillometer. We evaluated the test-retest reliability of qLRP by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and intra-subject, short-term variability by fitting linear mixed models. We compared ICCs for subgroups based on age, sex, disease severity (MCI vs. mild dementia), AD diagnosis, and amount of neurodegeneration (cerebrospinal fluid-total tau levels). Results In total, 40 patients (mean age 72 years, 15 female, 22 with mild dementia) were included in the study. We found good-excellent reliability (ICC range 0.86-0.93) for most qLRP parameters. qLRP parameters exhibited limited intra-subject variability and we found no large sources of variability when examining subgroups. Conclusion qLRP was found to have acceptable test-retest reliability and the study results pave the way for research using longitudinal or cross-sectional measurements to assess the construct in identifying and prognosticating neurodegenerative diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gramkow, M. H., Clemmensen, F. K., Waldemar, G., Hasselbalch, S. G., & Frederiksen, K. S. (2024). Test-retest reliability and short-term variability of quantitative light reflex pupillometry in a mixed memory clinic cohort. Journal of the neurological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2023.122856
Vancouver
Gramkow MH, Clemmensen FK, Waldemar G, Hasselbalch SG, Frederiksen KS. Test-retest reliability and short-term variability of quantitative light reflex pupillometry in a mixed memory clinic cohort. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2023.122856. PMID: 38154247.
BibTeX
@article{gramkow2024-38154247,
author = {Gramkow, M. H. and Clemmensen, F. K. and Waldemar, G. and Hasselbalch, S. G. and Frederiksen, K. S.},
title = {{Test-retest reliability and short-term variability of quantitative light reflex pupillometry in a mixed memory clinic cohort}},
journal = {Journal of the neurological sciences},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1016/j.jns.2023.122856},
pmid = {38154247},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2023.122856}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results In total, 40 patients (mean age 72 years, 15 female, 22 with mild dementia) were included in the study.
- We found good-excellent reliability (ICC range 0.86-0.93) for most qLRP parameters. qLRP parameters exhibited limited intra-subject variability and we found no large sources of variability when examining subgroups.
- Conclusion qLRP was found to have acceptable test-retest reliability and the study results pave the way for research using longitudinal or cross-sectional measurements to assess the construct in identifying and prognosticating neurodegenerative diseases.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants40
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the neurological sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 40 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38154247) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 34 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “short-term”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “short-term”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.