US2022367552(SONY SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS CORP [JP]) [0110] The semiconductor layer 100 S includes, for example, a first pinning region113 and a second pinning region 116 . 【0050】 半導体層100Sには、例えば、第1ピニング領域113および第2ピニング領域116が設けられている。
The first pinning region 113 is provided in proximity to the back surface of the semiconductor layer 100 S, and is disposed between the n-type semiconductor region 114 and the fixed electric charge film 112 . 第1ピニング領域113は、半導体層100Sの裏面近傍に設けられており、n型半導体領域114と固定電荷膜112との間に配置されている。
The second pinning region 116 is provided on a side surface of the pixel separation section 117 , specifically, between the pixel separation section 117 and the p-well layer 115 or the n-type semiconductor region 114 . 第2ピニング領域116は、画素分離部117の側面、具体的には、画素分離部117とpウェル層115またはn型半導体領域114との間に設けられている。
The first pinning region 113 and the second pinning region 116 each include, for example, a p-type semiconductor region. 第1ピニング領域113および第2ピニング領域116は、例えば、p型半導体領域により構成されている。
What is a "pinning region" in the context of semiconductor devices?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
In semiconductor devices, a "pinning region" is typically an area within a pixel, often in image sensors, designed to control or "pin" the potential of certain parts of the device. In pinned photodiodes, for instance, the pinning region sets a fixed potential level at the surface, which helps reduce dark current (unwanted signal generated in the absence of light) and improves noise performance.
The pinning region achieves this by creating a strong electric field or potential barrier, preventing charge carriers (like electrons) from accumulating at the surface. This controlled potential helps stabilize the device, enhances charge transfer efficiency, and improves the overall quality of the sensor's output, especially in low-light conditions.
How about "This device includes any one of A, B, and C"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, "This device includes any one of A, B, and C" works well and can add clarity by emphasizing the selection of a single option from A, B, or C. This phrasing is often clearer in technical contexts, where specifying "any one of" can help avoid ambiguity.
So, the refined translation:
"This device includes any one of A, B, and C."
あなた:
But the addition of "any" does not really change the meaning of the sentence, does it?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Correct, the addition of "any" does not change the fundamental meaning of the sentence. It slightly emphasizes the choice of one element from the options, but the sentence without "any" still conveys that only one of A, B, or C is included. In most contexts, the two versions are interchangeable, so choosing to include "any" is a matter of preference for emphasis rather than necessity.
Both of these translations are accurate:
"This device includes one of A, B, and C."
"This device includes any one of A, B, and C."
The first is concise, while the second may feel slightly more explicit in distinguishing the options.
"Optical path of the diffracted light emitted from the transmission-type diffraction grating."
あなた:
Is the word "emitted" appropriate, if the diffracted light is light that leaves the grating after being diffracted by it? Specifically, the word "emit" sounds to me like referring to the action of actively generating or producing that which leaves or exits something, rather than the process in which something, such as light, leaves or exits a lens, a medium, or the like. What do you think?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
You're absolutely right; "emitted" does often imply active generation, which might not be ideal here since the diffraction grating is simply altering the path of existing light rather than generating it. In this case, a word like "emerging" or "exiting" might be more precise.
A refined translation could be:
"Optical path of the diffracted light emerging from the transmission-type diffraction grating."
This keeps the focus on light leaving the grating without implying active production.
"A position where the laser beams emitted from each of the multiple laser light sources overlap."
あなた:
How about "A position where the laser beams emitted from the multiple laser light sources are superposed"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, "A position where the laser beams emitted from the multiple laser light sources are superposed" is also a valid translation. "Superposed" can add a slightly more technical nuance, emphasizing the alignment or precise overlay of the beams, which may be preferred in contexts that focus on optical alignment.
あなた:
Is "superposed on each other" or "superposed upon one another" better, rather than just "superposed"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Using "superposed on each other" or "superposed upon one another" can indeed add clarity, as it emphasizes that the beams are specifically layered over each other rather than merely in alignment. Between the two, "superposed on each other" is slightly more concise and may be preferable in technical writing for readability.
So, the full translation would be:
"A position where the laser beams emitted from the multiple laser light sources are superposed on each other."
This version is clear and precise, especially for technical contexts.
あなた:
But just "superposed" is acceptable and works just fine for general purposes?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, just "superposed" works fine for general purposes and is perfectly acceptable. In many contexts, "superposed" alone is understood to imply overlapping or alignment, so it maintains clarity while being more concise.
For example:
"A position where the laser beams emitted from the multiple laser light sources are superposed."
This version is streamlined yet accurate, making it a good choice for general use.
あなた:
How about "superimposed"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
"Superimposed" is also a good option and can work well in this context. It implies that the beams are layered over one another, similar to "superposed." However, "superimposed" may be slightly more common in general English and can sound a bit more intuitive to a wider audience, especially outside highly technical fields.
So, an alternative translation could be:
"A position where the laser beams emitted from the multiple laser light sources are superimposed."
This wording is clear and effective, especially if you're aiming for broader accessibility without sacrificing technical accuracy.
あなた:
Any other similar words for 重なり合う?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here are a few other words that convey similar meanings to 重なり合う, depending on the nuance you want:
Overlap – Common and straightforward, emphasizing that the beams or elements cover part of the same area.
Example: "A position where the laser beams overlap."
Coincide – More formal, suggesting precise alignment or convergence at the same location.
Example: "A position where the laser beams coincide."
Intersect – Suggests that the beams cross or meet, though it may imply a single point rather than full overlap.
Example: "A position where the laser beams intersect."
Converge – Implies that the beams come together or focus on a single point or area.
Example: "A position where the laser beams converge."
Each term brings a slightly different shade of meaning, so the best choice depends on the specific context and the visual or spatial effect you want to emphasize.
US2022399694(KLA CORP [US]) Wavelength selector 147 B- 2 may comprise one of an etalon (Fabry-Perot interferometer) and a transmissive-type grating (such as a volume Bragg grating or ruled grating). 波長セレクタ147B-2は、エタロン(ファブリーペロー干渉計)および透過型回折格子(体積型ブラッグ回折格子または機械刻線回折格子等)のうちの一方を含んでもよい。
Reflective element 147 B- 1 , when implemented as a wavelength selector, 波長セレクタとして実装される場合、反射素子147B-1は、
may be adjusted by controller 161 B by way of wavelength adjustments W 1 B- 2 such that the grating is rotated (as depicted by the dotted arrows) to direct the desired wavelength towards mirror 620 or, in the case of a volume Bragg grating, by adjusting its temperature (点線矢印により図示するように)回折格子が回転してミラー620の方に所望の波長を向けるように波長調整W1B-2により、または体積型ブラッグ回折格子の場合は温度Tを調整することにより、制御器161Bで調整されてもよい。
What is 透過型回折格子?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
The term "透過型回折格子" refers to a "transmission-type diffraction grating." In this type of optical component, light passes through a grating pattern, where it is diffracted, creating interference patterns that separate the light into its component wavelengths. Transmission-type diffraction gratings are widely used in spectrometers and other optical instruments to analyze light's spectral properties by exploiting the way different wavelengths are diffracted at different angles.
This is different from a "reflection-type diffraction grating" (反射型回折格子), where light reflects off the surface rather than passing through.
あなた:
Is "transmissive-type" also OK?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, "transmissive-type diffraction grating" is also acceptable, though "transmission-type" is more commonly used. "Transmissive" emphasizes the grating's property of allowing light to pass through, while "transmission" is a more conventional term for describing the grating's function in optical components. Both convey the correct meaning, so your choice may depend on whether you prefer consistency with standard terminology ("transmission-type") or want to highlight the material's property ("transmissive-type").
US2024003579(DAIKIN IND LTD [JP]) [0012] (1) Overall Configuration 【0026】 (1)全体構成
[0013] An air conditioning system 1 constitutes a vapor compression refrigeration cycle and performs air conditioning of a target space SP (space). 空気調和システム1は、蒸気圧縮式の冷凍サイクルを構成し、対象空間SP(空間)の空気調和を行う。
In the present embodiment, the air conditioning system 1 is a so-called multi-air conditioning system for buildings. 本実施形態では、空気調和システム1は、いわゆるビル用マルチ式空気調和システムである。
FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of the air conditioning system 1 . 図1は、空気調和システム1の概略構成図である。
As shown in FIG. 1 , the air conditioning system 1 mainly includes an air conditioning control apparatus 10 and a plurality of indoor units 20 a to 20 d . The air conditioning system 1 includes outdoor units 30 a and 30 b and a ventilator 40 . 図1に示すように、空気調和システム1は、主として、空調制御装置10と、複数の室内機20a~20dと、を備える。空気調和システム1は、室外機30a,30bと、換気装置40と、を有する。
The indoor units 20 a to 20 d , the outdoor units 30 a and 30 b , and the ventilator 40 are installed in the target space SP. 室内機20a~20dと、室外機30a,30bと、換気装置40とは、対象空間SPに設置されている。
"This device includes a computing circuit and a storage unit."
This maintains clarity regarding the components of the device. Let me know if you’d like any adjustments!
あなた:
How about 1. Arithmetic circuit 2. Computation circuit 3. Computing circuit 4. Operation circuit 5. Operational circuit
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Each of these options is technically accurate, but they have slight differences in connotation and usage. Here’s a quick comparison:
Arithmetic circuit
Usage: Often used when the circuit specifically performs basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, etc.).
Fit: Appropriate if the circuit is limited to arithmetic functions.
Computation circuit
Usage: More general, can encompass a broader range of calculations.
Fit: Suitable if the circuit handles various types of computations beyond arithmetic.
Computing circuit
Usage: Broad and versatile, suggesting a circuit capable of more complex or varied processing.
Fit: Ideal for general applications and may suggest versatility in processing tasks.
Operation circuit
Usage: Commonly implies a circuit performing specific operations, which could be arithmetic, logical, or other operations.
Fit: Good for general descriptions but may need context for clarity.
Operational circuit
Usage: Slightly more formal, often used when emphasizing the functional or systematic aspect of the circuit.
Fit: Suitable in contexts where the function is emphasized over the specific type of operations.
Recommendation: If the circuit specifically performs arithmetic operations, "arithmetic circuit" is best. For general-purpose processing, "computing circuit" or "computation circuit" would be appropriate, with computing circuit sounding slightly more versatile and modern.
あなた:
How about "calculation" or "calculating"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
"Calculation" and "calculating" can work as alternatives, though they each bring subtle differences in tone and specificity. Here’s how they compare:
Calculation circuit
Usage: This implies a focus on performing calculations, which could include arithmetic and possibly more complex computations.
Fit: Suitable if the circuit is dedicated to general calculations, but might sound slightly less technical than "computing circuit" or "computation circuit."
Calculating circuit
Usage: Suggests an active, ongoing process of calculating; often less common in technical writing, where "computing" or "computation" is preferred.
Fit: May sound somewhat informal or mechanical, less commonly used in electronics and computing contexts.
Recommendation: "Calculation circuit" could be a good choice if the circuit's primary function is calculation-focused. However, "computation circuit" or "computing circuit" are generally preferred in technical contexts for their broad application and technical sound. If your goal is technical accuracy with broad applicability, "computation circuit" or "computing circuit" might serve best.
"Two wires are drawn out from the winding, and each drawn-out wire is connected to a busbar."
This maintains clarity in the sequence of drawing out the wires and connecting them to the busbar. Let me know if any adjustments are needed!
あなた:
How about "Two wires are led out from the winding, and each led-out wire is connected to a busbar"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Your suggestion—"Two wires are led out from the winding, and each led-out wire is connected to a busbar"—is a great alternative. Using "led out" instead of "drawn out" can indeed sound more technical and intentional, which aligns well with precise descriptions often preferred in technical contexts.
This version is clear, accurate, and may better fit technical documentation where specific actions like "leading out" are described systematically. It would be well understood in this context, and the phrasing effectively avoids any ambiguity.
あなた:
Is "led-out wire" OK?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, "led-out wire" is acceptable in technical contexts, especially if you’re aiming to describe wires that have been specifically routed or extended from a component. However, if you want to ensure clarity for a broad audience, you might consider an alternative such as:
"each wire that has been led out,"
or simply, "each outgoing wire."
These options provide slightly more context without altering the technical accuracy.
"A food component derivation unit that derives food ingredients satisfying specified requirements using cooking recipes."
This captures the function of the unit in deriving ingredients based on set requirements through recipes. Let me know if you'd like any adjustments!
あなた:
How about
1. A food component derivation unit that uses cooking recipes to derive food ingredients satisfying specified requirements.
2. A food component derivation unit that, using cooking recipes, derives food ingredients satisfying specified requirements.
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Both options are well-structured, with slight differences in flow. Here’s a breakdown:
"A food component derivation unit that uses cooking recipes to derive food ingredients satisfying specified requirements."
Flow: This version flows smoothly and places the emphasis on the use of cooking recipes as the primary method.
Clarity: Very clear and straightforward, likely to resonate with readers as a concise explanation.
"A food component derivation unit that, using cooking recipes, derives food ingredients satisfying specified requirements."
Flow: The placement of "using cooking recipes" adds a bit more emphasis on the process and subtly separates it from the derivation function.
Clarity: Clear and emphasizes the action, with the phrasing adding a slightly formal tone.
Recommendation: If you prefer a slightly more straightforward flow, option 1 is ideal. If you'd like a bit more emphasis on the method (the use of recipes), option 2 works well. Both are accurate and maintain clarity.
あなた:
Referring back to your translation "A food component derivation unit that derives food ingredients satisfying specified requirements using cooking recipes", isn't it possible that someone may interpret "using" as referring to "requirements"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, that's a good point—it is possible that someone might interpret "using" as modifying "requirements" rather than "cooking recipes," especially on a first reading. To avoid this potential ambiguity, a slight rephrasing would help clarify that "using" specifically refers to the cooking recipes.
Here’s an adjusted version for clarity:
"A food component derivation unit that, using cooking recipes, derives food ingredients that satisfy specified requirements."
This rephrasing clearly separates the actions, making it more difficult to misinterpret "using" as referring to "requirements."
あなた:
But the original translation will be considered by most people as being sufficiently accurate and appropriate?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, most people would likely consider the original translation—"A food component derivation unit that derives food ingredients satisfying specified requirements using cooking recipes"—to be sufficiently accurate and clear in general. The slight ambiguity would probably not lead to misinterpretation for most readers, especially in a technical or contextual setting where the role of recipes in deriving food ingredients is understood.
For general use, the original phrasing should be considered both accurate and appropriate, especially if strict precision is not paramount.
トリアリールアミン (triaryl amine) refers to a chemical structure consisting of an amine group (–NH–) bonded to three aryl groups (aromatic rings). Triaryl amines are commonly used in organic electronics, such as in organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and organic photovoltaic cells, due to their excellent hole-transporting properties and thermal stability.
The aryl groups are usually phenyl rings, but they can also be other aromatic structures, which can modify the electronic and physical properties of the molecule for specific applications.
あなた:
Does it also spell "triallylamine"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
No, トリアリールアミン (triaryl amine) does not spell "triallylamine."
Triaryl amine refers to an amine attached to three aryl (aromatic) groups.
Triallylamine refers to an amine with three allyl (C₃H₅) groups attached to the nitrogen atom.
Despite the similar-sounding names, these compounds are quite different in structure and properties:
Triaryl amines are typically used in electronic applications due to their stability and hole-transport characteristics.
Triallylamine is an organic compound with uses in chemical synthesis and industry but lacks the same electronic properties.
あなた:
Are トリアリールアミン and トリアリルアミン different?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, トリアリールアミン (triaryl amine) and トリアリルアミン (triallylamine) are indeed different compounds.
トリアリールアミン (triaryl amine):
Composed of an amine attached to three aryl (aromatic ring) groups.
Often used in electronic applications, such as OLEDs, because of its stability and conductive properties.
トリアリルアミン (triallylamine):
Consists of an amine attached to three allyl (C₃H₅) groups, which are non-aromatic and contain a double bond.
Used in various industrial applications and chemical syntheses, but it does not share the electronic properties of triaryl amines.
Though their names sound similar, they differ significantly in both structure and application.
US11526092(FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION CORP [JP]) Examples of the tertiary amine compound include trimethylamine, triethylamine, tri-n-propylamine, triisopropylamine, 【0049】 3級アミン化合物としては、トリメチルアミン、トリエチルアミン、トリ-n-プロピルアミン、トリイソプロピルアミン、
3-ethyl-4-methylpyridine, 4-(5-nonyl)pyridine, imidazole, and N-methylpiperazine. 3-エチル-4-メチルピリジン、4-(5-ノニル)ピリジン、イミダゾール、N-メチルピペラジン等が挙げられる。
////////
From the viewpoint of charge mobility, the charge transporting material may be a triaryl amine derivative represented by structural formula (a-1) below or a benzidine derivative represented by structural formula (a-2) below. 【0150】 電荷輸送材料としては、電荷移動度の観点から、下記構造式(a-1)で示されるトリアリールアミン誘導体、及び下記構造式(a-2)で示されるベンジジン誘導体が好ましい。
"It was found that the voltage of the power supply depends on the properties of the semiconductor. By utilizing this point, a novel and stable power supply can be obtained."
This translation conveys the relationship and the potential application clearly. Let me know if any further adjustments are needed.
"It was found that the voltage of the power supply depends on the properties of the semiconductor. By utilizing this point and controlling the properties of the semiconductor, a novel and stable power supply can be obtained."
This version preserves the link between semiconductor control and achieving stability in the power supply. Let me know if you’d like further refinement!
あなた:
How about
1. By utilizing this point, it is possible to obtain a novel and stable power supply by controlling the properties of the semiconductor.
2. By utilizing this point, the properties of the semiconductor can be controlled to obtain a novel and stable power supply.
3. By utilizing this point, a novel and stable power supply can be obtained by controlling the properties of the semiconductor.
4. Utilizing this point, a novel and stable power supply can be obtained by controlling the properties of the semiconductor.
5. Utilizing this point, the properties of the semiconductor can be controlled to obtain a novel and stable power supply.
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Each of these options is quite clear, with slight differences in emphasis. Here’s a breakdown to help in choosing the best fit:
"By utilizing this point, it is possible to obtain a novel and stable power supply by controlling the properties of the semiconductor."
Tone: Slightly formal, emphasizes the possibility of obtaining the power supply through control.
Clarity: Very clear, with an explicit cause-effect relationship.
"By utilizing this point, the properties of the semiconductor can be controlled to obtain a novel and stable power supply."
Tone: Direct, with more emphasis on controlling the semiconductor properties as the means.
Clarity: Straightforward and efficient, focusing on control as the action leading to the outcome.
"By utilizing this point, a novel and stable power supply can be obtained by controlling the properties of the semiconductor."
Tone:Balanced, focusing equally on the outcome (power supply) and the method (controlling properties).
Clarity: Clear and direct, linking the outcome to the control method concisely.
"Utilizing this point, a novel and stable power supply can be obtained by controlling the properties of the semiconductor."
Tone: Slightly more concise than option 3, dropping “by.”
Clarity: Very clear, compact, with emphasis on the outcome and process.
"Utilizing this point, the properties of the semiconductor can be controlled to obtain a novel and stable power supply."
Tone: Similar to option 4 but emphasizes controlling semiconductor properties as the key action.
Clarity: Very direct, focusing on control leading to the outcome, with a streamlined structure.
Summary:
If you want a slight formality and focus on the potential (option 1).
For a balance between the control action and the outcome, option 3 is ideal.
"A barrier layer including a semiconductor provided on one surface side of the substrate."
This maintains the intended specificity regarding the location and components. Let me know if any adjustments are needed.
あなた:
According to the translation, is it the barrier layer, or the semiconductor that is provided on the surface?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
In the translation provided, it sounds as though the barrier layeritself (which includes a semiconductor) is what is provided on one surface side of the substrate. The structure suggests that both the presence of the semiconductor and its location are attributes of the barrier layer rather than of the semiconductor alone.
For added clarity, we could rephrase as:
"A barrier layer, which includes a semiconductor, provided on one surface side of the substrate."
This wording reinforces that it is indeed the entire barrier layer that is located on the substrate’s surface side.
あなた:
But it is possible that some people may think it is the semiconductor that's on the surface, isn't it?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Yes, that's a valid concern. The original phrasing could indeed lead some to interpret that it’s the semiconductor, rather than the barrier layer as a whole, that is on the substrate's surface.
To eliminate this ambiguity, we could rephrase as:
"A barrier layer provided on one surface side of the substrate, the barrier layer including a semiconductor."
This structure makes it unmistakably clear that it is the barrier layer (which includes a semiconductor) that is located on the surface side of the substrate.
あなた:
How likely is it that people in general would interpret that the semiconductor is on the surface?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
It’s moderately likely, especially for readers who aren’t familiar with technical structures like this. In general, people may assume that the element closest to the phrase “provided on the surface” (in this case, the semiconductor) is what’s being located there. While some technical readers might infer that the entire barrier layer is meant, anyone unfamiliar with the intended structural hierarchy could reasonably conclude that only the semiconductor is positioned on the surface.
When precision is crucial—as in patent or technical writing—choosing a phrasing that explicitly clarifies the intended structure is typically best to avoid any potential misinterpretation.
あなた:
How about "A barrier layer provided on one surface side of the substrate and including a semiconductor"?
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT
Your suggested phrasing—"A barrier layer provided on one surface side of the substrate and including a semiconductor"—is actually quite effective. This structure clearly ties the location to the entire barrier layer, not just the semiconductor, while keeping the sentence concise. By linking both actions ("provided" and "including") directly to the barrier layer, it minimizes ambiguity.
This phrasing should convey the intended meaning to both technical and general readers with minimal risk of misinterpretation.
WO2015010094(EUTROPICS PHARMACEUTICALS INC [US]) [0128] In some embodiments, the clinical factor is the French-American-British (FAB) classification system for hematologic diseases (e.g. indicating the presence of dysmyelopoiesis and the quantification of myeloblasts and erythroblasts). 【0120】 いくつかの実施形態では、臨床因子は、血液疾患に対するフランス-アメリカ-イギリス(FAB)分類システムである(例えば、骨髄細胞形態異常(dysmyelopoiesis)の存在、並びに骨髄芽球及び赤芽球の定量化を示す)。
In one embodiment, the FAB for acute lymphoblastic leukemias is L1-L3, or for acute myeloid leukemias is M0-M7. 一実施形態では、急性リンパ芽球性白血病のFABは、L1-L3、または急性骨髄性白血病のFABは、M0-M7である。
US2023372100(ARTEMA THERAPEUTICS INC [US]) [0040] Evidence suggests that mutations in KCNV2 affect both cone and rod photoreceptors, 【0020】 証拠は、KCNV2の突然変異が錐体光受容体と桿体光受容体の両方に影響を及ぼすことを示唆しており、
which is reflected in abnormal ERG recordings for both photoreceptors and widespread throughout the retina, however, これは両方の光受容体の異常ERG記録に反映され、網膜全体に広がるが、
in some patients the morphological changes observed appear to be more pronounced in cones. 一部の患者では、観察された形態学的変化は錐体でより顕著であるように見える。
High resolution imaging of the retina using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) in CDSRR patients has revealed that gross morphological abnormalities usually in the central retina. CDSRR患者におけるスペクトルドメイン光干渉断層撮影(SD-OCT)を使用した網膜の高解像度画像化により、通常は中央網膜の肉眼的形態異常が明らかになった。
WO2017218515(REGENERON PHARMA [US]) [0345] For both studies, non-invasive, in-life evaluation by OCT 【0364】 両方の試験について、非侵襲性のOCTによる生存中評価は、
showed a progressive development of inflammation, increased retinal thickness and morphological abnormalities in control animals following immunization with IRBP. IRBPを用いた免疫後の対照マウスにおいて進行性の炎症の発生、増加した網膜厚及び形態異常を示した。