Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
Glaucoma was based on optic nerve damage attributed to glaucoma.
Our reference for the diagnosis of glaucoma was based on optic nerve head (ONH) topography and/or examination of available ONH photographs.
Glaucoma subjects had a diagnosis of primary open angle, primary angle closure, pseudoexfoliation, or pigment dispersion glaucoma based on optic nerve and VF findings.
Similar(57)
Patients were referred based on optic disc damage: focal or diffuse neuroretinal rim thinning, localised notching or nerve fibre layer defects.
The sclera-choroid-RPE was then cut off from the base of optic nerve.
Cataract was determined if the level of lens opacity correlated with the visual acuity, glaucoma was diagnosed based on intraocular pressure and optic nerve head appearance, and refractive error was the cause if the vision corrected to better than 20/30 with spectacles.
A white flocculent, flake-like material on various intraocular structures is found on various intraocular structures, such as the posterior lens capsule, the pars plana, the vitreous base, the optic nerve head, and the posterior retina [ 9, 43].
The definitive diagnosis of glaucoma is currently based on congruent damage to both optic nerve structure and function.
The patient's eligibility for treatment is determined based on the proximity of the optic nerve to the macula [ 48].
As part of the review of clinical records for 100 of the glaucoma suspects, we determined that 48% were suspects based on the appearance of their optic nerve, 23% based on a history of elevated intraocular pressure, 11% based on family history, 6% based on the appearance of their anterior chamber angle, 4% based on their visual field, and 8% for other reasons.
To thoroughly define the correlation between ONH microgliosis at a young age and the susceptibility to develop glaucoma at an older age, we established a quantitative measure of optic nerve pathology based on the magnitude of gliosis and gliotic scaring associated with nerve degeneration (Crish et al., 2010; Libby et al., 2005; Schlamp et al., 2006).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com