Boberg-Ans
The optic cornea, as it turns out, is extremely sensitive to touch. We had proposed measuring its sensitivity in a Small Business Innovative Research grant – an SBIR. The SBIR-I (i.e., phase one) went well for our corneal esthesiometer. We built a single instrument and collected preliminary data in its use. Thus, the concept was proved in the SBIR-I, the first phase of product development.
We originally thought to seek the second phase of the SBIR grant, SBIR-II. We intended to use SBIR-II for data collection, to develop normative data, but we ran into trouble. The federal-funding section, that is, the National Eye Institute – NEI – published its new research guidelines. Just then the cornea was out, and the retina was in. Thus, we were put out of business for the SBIR-II.
Nevertheless, I stubbornly held on to the idea that we could be funded. I was given one week to find out how our front-of-the-eye esthesiometer would reflect problems associated with the back-of-the-eye retina. It was already well known that increased eye pressure was bad for the retina. We had no data on the cornea, however. Anticipating rejection, the staff of the laboratory was not confident that a device we called a corneal esthesiometer could be properly offered to the NEI experts who wanted to examine the retina.
Thus, I started my secondary research into the relationship between the cornea and the retina. At first, I was surprised that I could not find anything relevant published, and then I found out why. One published article related the cornea to increased eye pressure and the retina. The article was authored by Dr. Boberg-Ans, a well respected clinician and researcher in vision. In his quest to explore the relationship of eye-pressure with the retina and the cornea, he published a clinical investigation of one patient. This patient had uncontrollable bouts of increased eye pressure, and concomitantly he had measured both eye pressure and corneal threshold. His results were clear -- there was no relationship between eye pressure and corneal threshold.
Nevertheless, I sought his nemesis, someone who would say the opposite. There was nobody. The verdict came swiftly from our lab -- quit. No one wanted to attack the research of Dr. Boberg-Ans.
Even then, I asked for more time. The section head looked at me as if to ask, “Why do you want to pursue this dead issue?” But I was offered another week, as long as I did not get behind in our other projects.
I kept on reading Boberg-Ans’ paper. It was not complicated. It was well written. He described what he did. He even included the dataset. I entered Boberg-Ans’ data into my computer and ran a correlation. Just as Boberg-Ans had published, there was no relationship. So I stared and stared at the data, as if that could make something happen.
Finally, I had asked myself, “What if the cornea were more resistant to the increase in eye pressure?” That was a reasonable question because the higher curvature of the optic cornea results in less tension than what would be found on the retina. In response, I ran a lag-correlation. A lag-correlation is performed by correlating two sets of data where one set is lagged behind the other (typically, out of phase in time). I correlated this week’s eye pressure with next week’s threshold. That was it! The lag-correlation was statistically significant. Increased eye pressure was bad for the cornea. The injury took longer to evidence than with the retina.
We submitted the grant with this new information, and we were funded by the National Eye Institute for about 0.5 million dollars. To this day, I thank the great Dr. Boberg-Ans for publishing his data.
Publication
Detection of glaucoma at normal intraocular pressures by means of ocular tactile thresholds. Today's Therapeutic Trends, 1993, 10, 225-237
The optic cornea, as it turns out, is extremely sensitive to touch. We had proposed measuring its sensitivity in a Small Business Innovative Research grant – an SBIR. The SBIR-I (i.e., phase one) went well for our corneal esthesiometer. We built a single instrument and collected preliminary data in its use. Thus, the concept was proved in the SBIR-I, the first phase of product development.
We originally thought to seek the second phase of the SBIR grant, SBIR-II. We intended to use SBIR-II for data collection, to develop normative data, but we ran into trouble. The federal-funding section, that is, the National Eye Institute – NEI – published its new research guidelines. Just then the cornea was out, and the retina was in. Thus, we were put out of business for the SBIR-II.
Nevertheless, I stubbornly held on to the idea that we could be funded. I was given one week to find out how our front-of-the-eye esthesiometer would reflect problems associated with the back-of-the-eye retina. It was already well known that increased eye pressure was bad for the retina. We had no data on the cornea, however. Anticipating rejection, the staff of the laboratory was not confident that a device we called a corneal esthesiometer could be properly offered to the NEI experts who wanted to examine the retina.
Thus, I started my secondary research into the relationship between the cornea and the retina. At first, I was surprised that I could not find anything relevant published, and then I found out why. One published article related the cornea to increased eye pressure and the retina. The article was authored by Dr. Boberg-Ans, a well respected clinician and researcher in vision. In his quest to explore the relationship of eye-pressure with the retina and the cornea, he published a clinical investigation of one patient. This patient had uncontrollable bouts of increased eye pressure, and concomitantly he had measured both eye pressure and corneal threshold. His results were clear -- there was no relationship between eye pressure and corneal threshold.
Nevertheless, I sought his nemesis, someone who would say the opposite. There was nobody. The verdict came swiftly from our lab -- quit. No one wanted to attack the research of Dr. Boberg-Ans.
Even then, I asked for more time. The section head looked at me as if to ask, “Why do you want to pursue this dead issue?” But I was offered another week, as long as I did not get behind in our other projects.
I kept on reading Boberg-Ans’ paper. It was not complicated. It was well written. He described what he did. He even included the dataset. I entered Boberg-Ans’ data into my computer and ran a correlation. Just as Boberg-Ans had published, there was no relationship. So I stared and stared at the data, as if that could make something happen.
Finally, I had asked myself, “What if the cornea were more resistant to the increase in eye pressure?” That was a reasonable question because the higher curvature of the optic cornea results in less tension than what would be found on the retina. In response, I ran a lag-correlation. A lag-correlation is performed by correlating two sets of data where one set is lagged behind the other (typically, out of phase in time). I correlated this week’s eye pressure with next week’s threshold. That was it! The lag-correlation was statistically significant. Increased eye pressure was bad for the cornea. The injury took longer to evidence than with the retina.
We submitted the grant with this new information, and we were funded by the National Eye Institute for about 0.5 million dollars. To this day, I thank the great Dr. Boberg-Ans for publishing his data.
Publication
Detection of glaucoma at normal intraocular pressures by means of ocular tactile thresholds. Today's Therapeutic Trends, 1993, 10, 225-237