Deprecated: Invalid characters passed for attempted conversion, these have been ignored in E:\SitiWordPress\ScreeningNaca\wordpress\wp-content\themes\spacious\inc\functions.php on line 277
The project objectives will be achieved mainly following the development phases described in work-packages:

  • WP1 – Coordination and Project Management (INPUT)
  • WP2 – Development of an optical theoretical and simulative model
    1. Analytical model for the description of the optical set-up.
    2. Simulative model of the description optical set-up.
      3. Evaluation Criteria:
      Applicability of the theoretical and simulative results in-vitro and in-vivo, information to define the optimal optics and electronics topology of the instrument.
  • WP3 – Design and development of the portable unit
    1. Electronic and Optical design and realization of the portable unit.
    2. Functional test of the system units and whole instrument.
      3. Evaluation Criteria:
      Prototype of the system and its functional performance
  • WP4 – Algorithms design and implementation.
    1. Development of the algorithms and software for data processing and extraction for the information of interest.
      2. Evaluation Criteria:
      System Performance
  • WP5 – In-vitro system characterization
    1. In-vitro characterization of the system on a mechanical eye model.
    2. Comparison with the standard Van Herick technique.
      3. Evaluation Criteria:
      Metrological information, in-vitro applicability, comparison information.
  • WP6 – In-Vivo characterization
    1. In-vivo assessment of the reproducibility and repeatability of the peripheral anterior chamber width (PACW) evaluation by the New Portable Unit in the study group.
    2. Comparison of the reproducibility and repeatability of the PACW assessment by the New portable unit with those of the Van Herick grading system, and PACW assessment obtained by gonioscopy.
    3. Assessment of the inter-operator agreement of PACW assessment and comparison with that of the Van Herick test.
    4. Assessment of the agreement of PACW evaluation between the New Portable Unit, the Van Herick grading system and gonioscopy.
      5. Evaluation Criteria:
      Metrological information, in-vivo applicability, comparison information.
  • WP7 – In-Vivo assessment of system diagnostic accuracy
    1. To assess in vivo, in a clinical research setting with a case-control design, the diagnostic performance of the New Portable Unit in detecting narrow angles, using gonioscopy as the reference standard and Van Herick grading system as comparator.
    2. To assess the predictive value of the PACW evaluation by the means of the New Portable Unit for the presence of an occludable angle as defined by the presence of irido-trabecular contact and peripheral anterior contact at gonioscopy.
      3. Evaluation Criteria:
      Metrological information, in-vivo applicability, comparison information.
  • WP8 – Evaluation of the New Portable Unit role for case detection in clinical settings and for screening in population settings
    1. Development of computational models aimed at estimating the cost/effectiveness of screening for angle closure in populations differing by the prevalence of angle closure and taking into account the diagnostic accuracy measures, such as the positive and negative likelihood ratios, of the New Portable Unit.
    2. Development of a clinical decision-making model for angle closure incorporating information coming from the New Portable Unit and gonioscopy.
      3. Evaluation Criteria:
      Metrological information, cost/effectiveness of large scale in-vivo applicability.
  • WP9 – Performance improvement and system re-design.
    1. Critical analysis of the instrument performance.
    2. Description of possible hardware and software improvements.
      3. Evaluation Criteria:
      Identification of the ultimate limits and improvements of the system.
  • WP10 – Communication and dissemination (OUTPUT).