PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Banijamali, S. Mohammad Ali
AU  - Versek, Craig
AU  - Babinski, Kristen
AU  - Kamarthi, Sagar
AU  - Green-LaRoche, Deborah
AU  - Sridhar, Srinivas
TI  - Portable Multi-focal Visual Evoked Potential Diagnostics for Multiple Sclerosis/Optic Neuritis patients
AID  - 10.1101/2023.12.26.23300405
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.12.26.23300405
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/26/2023.12.26.23300405.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/26/2023.12.26.23300405.full
AB  - Purpose Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a neuro-inflammatory disease of the Central Nervous System (CNS) in which the body’s immune system attacks and destroys myelin sheath that protects nerve fibers and causes disruption in axonal signal transmission. Demyelinating Optic Neuritis (ON) is often a manifestation of MS and involves inflammation of the optic nerve. ON can cause vision loss, pain and discomfort in the eyes, and difficulties in color perception.In this study, we developed NeuroVEP, a portable, wireless diagnostic system that delivers visual stimuli through a smartphone in a headset and measures evoked potentials at the visual cortex from near the O1, Oz, O2, O9 and O10 locations on the scalp (extended 10-20 system) using custom electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes.Methods Each test session is constituted by a short 2.5-minute full-field visual evoked potentials (ffVEP) test, followed by a 12.5-minute multifocal VEP (mfVEP) test. The ffVEP test evaluates the integrity of the visual pathway by analyzing the P1 (also known as P100) component of responses from each eye, while the mfVEP test evaluates 36 individual regions of the visual field for abnormalities. Extensive signal processing, feature extraction methods, and machine learning algorithms were explored for analyzing the mfVEP responses. The results of the ffVEP test for patients were evaluated against normative data collected from a group of subjects with normal vision. Custom visual stimuli with simulated defects were used to validate the mfVEP results which yielded 91% accuracy of classification.Results 20 subjects, 10 controls and 10 with MS and/or ON were tested with the NeuroVEP device and a standard-of-care (SOC) VEP testing device which delivers only ffVEP stimuli. In 91% of the cases, the ffVEP results agreed between NeuroVEP and SOC device. Where available, the NeuroVEP mfVEP results were in good agreement with Humphrey Automated Perimetry visual field analysis. The lesion locations deduced from the mfVEP data were consistent with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) findings.Conclusion This pilot study indicates that NeuroVEP has the potential to be a reliable, portable, and objective diagnostic device for electrophysiology and visual field analysis for neuro-visual disorders.Competing Interest StatementCraig Versek and Srinivas Sridhar declare financial compensation from and financial interest in NeuroFieldz Inc, which is commercializing the NeuroVEP testing system.Funding StatementThis work was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health CTSI grant UL1TR002544.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Northeastern University and Tufts Medical Center Institutional Review Boards (IRB Study # 13395, Protocol title: Objective Portable Diagnostics of Neurological Disorders using Visual Evoked Potentials) and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects were either referred by their clinical neurologist at the Department of Neurology at Tufts Medical Center or were self-enrolled after seeing an advertisement posted around Tufts Medical Center.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.