RNFLT should be linearly proportional to the number of axons within the RNFL, at least for longitudinal change assuming that the RNFL “collapses” to a compact bundle packing as axons are lost (this assumption is well supported by published
11 and other unpublished observations). A linear model also is simplest and, thus, was our a priori choice. However, there is a well known “floor effect” for RNFLT
12–14 whereby complete loss of all axons results in a plateau value of approximately 30% to 40% of the average normal RNFLT. The range of severity in our study did not include that end-stage level of damage; the two animals with the most severe damage each had 74% loss of optic nerve axons (
Table 2). Nevertheless, it was prudent to evaluate alternative models to fit these data. The fitness of exponential and higher-order polynomial models was compared to the linear model for each data set (all eyes combined, and the EG and control eye groups fit separately) using
F-tests and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) differences. In all cases, the linear model was most appropriate. Second-order polynomial (quadratic) models produced marginally better fits (slightly higher
R 2 values, as expected, given their greater number of degrees of freedom); however, the fits never were statistically significantly better than that provided by the linear model (e.g., linear versus quadratic fit,
F [1,41df] = 0.005,
P = 0.95, and AIC difference = −4.5 for all eyes combined, and
F [1,19df] = 1.6,
P = 0.22, and AIC difference = −1.3 for EG eyes alone), indicating the linear model was superior. The appropriateness of the linear model also was confirmed in each case by performing a runs test and normality test (D'Agostino-Pearson omnibus K2) on the residuals. Finally, it should be noted that in every case the best fit of either the exponential or quadratic model produced results opposite to what would have been predicted if the floor effect for RNFLT had been operative: the slight bend in the best-fit function always was oriented toward the lower right of the graph not the upper left, though this is moot since the linear fits were statistically superior in each case.