Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Purpose: To investigate the thickness changes of outer retinal layers in subjects with white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and Parkinson's Disease (PD). Methods: 56 eyes from 31 patients with WMH, 11 eyes from 6 PD patients, and 58 eyes from 32 healthy controls (HC) were enrolled in this study. A macular-centered scan was conducted on each participant using a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) device. After speckle noise reduction, a state-of-the-art deep learning method (i.e., a context encoder network) was employed to segment the outer retinal layers from OCT B-scans. Thickness quantification of the outer retinal layers was conducted on the basis of the segmentation results. Results: WMH patients had significantly thinner Henle fiber layers, outer nuclear layers (HFL+ONL) and photoreceptor outer segments (OS) than HC (p = 0.031, and p = 0.005), while PD patients showed a significant increase of mean thickness in the interdigitation zone and the retinal pigment epithelium/Bruch complex (IZ+RPE) (19.619 ± 4.626) compared to HC (17.434 ± 1.664). There were no significant differences in the thickness of the outer plexiform layer (OPL), the myoid and ellipsoid zone (MEZ), and the IZ+RPE layer between WMH and HC subjects. Similarly, there were also no obvious differences in the thickness of the OPL, HFL+ONL, MEZ and the OS layer between PD and HC subjects. Conclusion: Thickness changes in HFL+ONL, OS, and IZ+RPE layers may correlate with brain-related diseases such as WMH and PD. Further longitudinal study is needed to confirm HFL+ONL/OS/IZ+RPE layer thickness as potential biomarkers for detecting certain brain-related diseases.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.