DrDiana wrote:The statistician (uh, that would be me) will be looking at the fundus photos "blindly" and trying to divide them into "normal" and "not normal". Any of the criteria may be enough to put someone in the "not normal" category. Then we'll analyze them from there as to what indicators were most prominent, etc.
Thank you for your explanation, Dr. Diana. Your study will have a total of 30 MS patients; does that equate to a total of 60 MS samples (two eyes/patient) for purposes of statistical significance?
Bilateral ON is one of my most challenging symptoms. I wonder if I would show up as "not normal" in your study with my symptom history of PAIN in eyes, PAIN behind eyes, blurry vision, double vision, tunnel vision, loss of peripheral vision, loss of color vision (much improved post-venoplasty), scotomas (blind spots), and recurrent amaurosis fugax (temporary total blindness, self-inflicted by rubbing eyes while asleep due to PAIN).
I have a theory about that and will present it to everyone for feedback soon. Dr. Dake asked me a similar question, and the only problem I'm running into is how to prove my theory right or wrong WITHOUT using tissue post-mortem. Ewww, and Yikes.
If there's a way to prove/disprove your theory without having to use post-mortem tissue, I do hope you find it!
However, if you do end up needing such tissue samples, I hope you don't run into any problems obtaining them. Do you know of an organization to which a pw'MS' could donate their eyes and/or other organs/tissues to 'MS'-related research?
Also, if it's possible for a person to have Optomap imaging done locally, do you ever look at such images from patients who send them to you?
Thank you again!