Analysis of Discrepancy Between Diagnostic Clinical Examination Findings and Corresponding Evaluation of Digital Images in the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: As effective treatments for potentially blinding retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) have been introduced, the importance of consistency in findings has increased, especially with the shift toward retinal imaging in infants at risk of ROP. OBJECTIVE: To characterize discrepancies in findings of ROP between digital retinal image grading and examination results from the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity study, conducted from May 2011 to October 2013. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A poststudy consensus review of images was conducted by 4 experts, who examined discrepancies in findings between image grades by trained nonphysician readers and physician examination results in infants with referral-warranted ROP (RW-ROP). Images were obtained from 13 North American neonatal intensive care units from eyes of infants with birth weights less than 1251 g. For discrepancy categories with more than 100 cases, 40 were randomly selected; in total, 188 image sets were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Consensus evaluation of discrepant image and examination findings for RW-ROP components. RESULTS: Among 5350 image set pairs, there were 161 instances in which image grading did not detect RW-ROP noted on clinical examination (G-/E+) and 854 instances in which grading noted RW-ROP when the examination did not (G+/E-). Among the sample of G-/E+ cases, 18 of 32 reviews (56.3%) agreed with clinical examination findings that ROP was present in zone I and 18 of 40 (45.0%) agreed stage 3 ROP was present, but only 1 of 20 (5.0%) agreed plus disease was present. Among the sample of G+/E- cases, 36 of 40 reviews (90.0%) agreed with readers that zone I ROP was present, 23 of 40 (57.5%) agreed with readers that stage 3 ROP was present, and 4 of 16 (25.0%) agreed that plus disease was present. Based on the consensus review results of the sampled cases, we estimated that review would agree with clinical examination findings in 46.5% of the 161 G-/E+ cases (95% CI, 41.6-51.6) and agree with trained reader grading in 70.0% of the 854 G+/E- cases (95% CI, 67.3-72.8) for the presence of RW-ROP. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This report highlights limitations and strengths of both the remote evaluation of fundus images and bedside clinical examination of infants at risk for ROP. These findings highlight the need for standardized approaches as ROP telemedicine becomes more widespread.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle