Evaluation of Retinal Morphology and Retinal Sensibility Before and After Macular Pucker Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \n \nPurpose:To analyze the role of both morphological and functional retinal assessment to better understand macular pucker surgery outcomes. \n \nMethods:This prospective study included 23 eyes of 23 consecutive patients affected by macular pucker who underwent standard macular surgery. Morphological examinations and functional assessments were evaluated at baseline and at month 1, 3 and 6 after surgery. Morphological examination was performed by Spectral OCT (OTI, Toronto, Canada) evaluating type and thickness of macular edema. Functional assessment included visual acuity, retinal sensibility and fixation pattern using the microperimeter (MP1, Nidek Technologies, Padova, Italy). \n \nResults:Presurgical morphological quantitative evaluation showed mean retinal thickness of 493.50±85.87 µm; after surgery, at day 30 we found 355.50±73.28 µm, at day 90 323.70±77.40 µm, at day 180 313.17±80.75 µm. Presurgical functional evaluation showed LogMAR mean visual acuity of 0.56±0.19 and retinal sensitivity of 11.14±3.30 dB; after surgery, at day 30 we found 0.40±0.19 and 11.73±3.33 dB, at day 90 0.41±0.17 and 12.06±4.14 dB, at day 180 0.32±0.17 and 12.18±2.44 dB. Overall macular thickness reduction and visual acuity increase resulted statistically significant (p<0.05) at each control during the follow up. Mean retinal sensibility increase resulted significant (p<0.05) between baseline and day 180. Fixation pattern improved significantly (p<0.05), showing a stable fixation in 12 of 23 patients (57%) at baseline, in 17 of 23 patients (74%) at day 30 and in 20 of 23 patients (87%) at day 180, suggesting a significative recovery on visual performances. \n \nConclusion: Our study, as already known in literature, shows macular thickness reduction significantly related to visual acuity increase. Moreover, functional evaluation we performed underlined the role of microperimetry (retinal sensibility and fixation pattern) to complete visual acuity examination for a better definition of the efficacy of surgical treatment. Overall, our study showed that morphological retinal analysis associated to functional assessment could best evaluate clinical effectiveness of the therapy applied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".