Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 7;64(14):7. doi: 10.1167/iovs.64.14.7

Table 2.

Age-Controlled Comparison of Functional Metrics Between eAMD and iAMD Subgroups

iAMD
Variable eAMD Model Estimate [95% CI] Model Estimate [95% CI] T Value P Value
BCVA (logMAR) −0.39 [−0.72 to −0.07] −0.37 [−0.76 to −0.02] 0.7 0.5
LLVA (logMAR) −0.19 [−0.58 to −0.21] −0.18 [−0.65 to −0.30] 0.3 0.8
CS Gabor 3 cpd (logCS) 2.62 [1.33–3.91] 2.43 [0.87–3.99] −1.4 0.2
Metrics deduced from qCSF method
 CA (logCPD) 1.76 [1.33–2.20] 1.71 [1.20–2.24] −1.1 0.3
 AULCSF (logCS•logCPD) 2.15 [1.35–2.94] 2.05 [1.09–3.0] −1.3 0.2
CS at specific spatial frequencies
 1 cpd (logCS) 1.91 [1.46–2.36] 1.78 [1.24–2.32] −2.9 0.006
 1.5 cpd (logCS) 2.11 [1.65–2.58] 1.99 [1.44–2.55] −2.7 0.01
 3 cpd (logCS) 2.32 [1.66–2.98] 2.22 [1.43–3.01] −1.5 0.1
 6 cpd (logCS) 2.10 [1.18–3.01] 2.01 [0.91–3.10] −1.0 0.3
 12 cpd (logCS) 1.61 [0.56–2.66] 1.53 [0.27–2.78] −0.8 0.4
 18 cpd (logCS) 0.90 [0.12–1.67] 0.85 [−0.08 to −1.78] −0.6 0.5