Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,818 studies31 sourcesUpdated 4 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0In Vivo

Macular Retinal Ganglion Cell Counts and Central Visual Field Sensitivity in Glaucoma: A Comparison of Logarithmic and Linear Scales

  • GIAMPAOLO TROIANO1,2
  • ARIANNA ASADI2
  • STEFANO PIO2
  • SILVIO DI STASO2
  • MARCO CIANCAGLINI2
  • PAOLO CARPINETO3
  1. 1Hospital “G. Mazzini” of Teramo, Ophthalmology Department, Teramo, Italy
  2. 2Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, Section of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy
  3. 3Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background/Aim: To evaluate the structure-function relationship between mean central differential light sensitivity, scaled in decibels (dB) and linear units (1/L), and estimated macular retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) counts derived using Medeiros’ integrated algorithms in glaucoma patients.

Materials and Methods: In this study of 55 eyes, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured via spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and functional sensitivity was assessed using 24-2 standard automated perimetry. Macular RGC counts were calculated from temporal sectors using Medeiros’ formulas. Functional data averaged the 16 central perimetric points. Regression models and Pearson coefficients (r) compared both scaling methods.

Results: Macular RGC count averaged 465,939.5±213,096.2. The logarithmic model (dB) demonstrated an exceptional fit [y=–47.96+5.86ln(x); adjusted R2=0.8891; r=0.9440; p<0.0001]. The linear model (1/L) showed a strong correlation (y=–133.62+0.0019x; adjusted R2=0.7647; r=0.8770; p<0.0001), explaining 12% less variance overall.

Conclusion: While the logarithmic scale offers superior overall fit, the linear scale (1/L) is clinically critical for detecting early, “silent” neural loss masked by perimetric data compression. These findings support optimizing the standard 24-2 grid through localized “macular cluster indices” to improve pre-perimetric glaucoma detection.

Related

  1. Analysis of macular ganglion cell status in dry AMD using single-nucleus transcriptomics
    Shahna S. Hameed, Tasneem P. Sharma
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textGeneral medicineCrossref
  2. Human glaucoma is associated with sphingomyelin depletion and acid sphingomyelinase elevation in retinal ganglion cells
    Mathew Seidel, Het Patel, Cassandra Warden +1
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineDOAJ
  3. Increased incidence of glaucoma and intraocular pressure fluctuation after vitrectomy for macular hole and macular pucker
    Tsung-En Huang, Eugene Yu-Chuan Kang, Chu-Yen Huang +4
    Taiwan Journal of OphthalmologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textMedical imaging & radiologyDOAJ
  4. Comparison of short-term peripheral nerve stimulation, single-target supraorbital nerve pulsed radiofrequency, and dual-target supraorbital nerve–stellate ganglion pulsed radiofrequency for herpes zoster ophthalmicus–associated pain: a retrospective cohort study
    Chen Liang, Anxiang Liu, Anxiang Liu +1
    Frontiers in NeurosciencePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaDOAJCrossref
  5. Evaluation of the Perimouse Online Suprathreshold Visual Field Test for Glaucoma Screening in a Chinese Population: A Comparison with the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Xiaoyuan Shen, Zidong Chen, Kaixin Tan +6
    Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)Peer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMCPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{troiano2026macular,
  title = {{Macular Retinal Ganglion Cell Counts and Central Visual Field Sensitivity in Glaucoma: A Comparison of Logarithmic and Linear Scales}},
  author = {GIAMPAOLO TROIANO and ARIANNA ASADI and STEFANO PIO and SILVIO DI STASO and MARCO CIANCAGLINI and PAOLO CARPINETO},
  journal = {In Vivo},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.21873/invivo.14504},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.14504},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Macular Retinal Ganglion Cell Counts and Central Visual Field Sensitivity in Glaucoma: A Comparison of Logarithmic and Linear Scales
AU  - GIAMPAOLO TROIANO
AU  - ARIANNA ASADI
AU  - STEFANO PIO
AU  - SILVIO DI STASO
AU  - MARCO CIANCAGLINI
AU  - PAOLO CARPINETO
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/29
JO  - In Vivo
DO  - 10.21873/invivo.14504
UR  - https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.14504
AB  - Background/Aim: To evaluate the structure-function relationship between mean central differential light sensitivity, scaled in decibels (dB) and linear units (1/L), and estimated macular retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) counts derived using Medeiros’ integrated algorithms in glaucoma patients.  Materials and Methods: In this study of 55 eyes, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured via spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and functional sensitivity was assessed using 24-2 standard automated perimetry. Macular RGC counts were calculated from temporal sectors using Medeiros’ formulas. Functional data averaged the 16 central perimetric points. Regression models and Pearson coefficients (r) compared both scaling methods.  Results: Macular RGC count averaged 465,939.5±213,096.2. The logarithmic model (dB) demonstrated an exceptional fit [y=–47.96+5.86ln(x); adjusted R2=0.8891; r=0.9440; p<0.0001]. The linear model (1/L) showed a strong correlation (y=–133.62+0.0019x; adjusted R2=0.7647; r=0.8770; p<0.0001), explaining 12% less variance overall.  Conclusion: While the logarithmic scale offers superior overall fit, the linear scale (1/L) is clinically critical for detecting early, “silent” neural loss masked by perimetric data compression. These findings support optimizing the standard 24-2 grid through localized “macular cluster indices” to improve pre-perimetric glaucoma detection.
SN  - 0258-851X
SN  - 1791-7549
ER  -