Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a disorder of the developing retinal blood vessels of the preterm infant. New recommendations for screening and treatment of ROP have been published in the past few years. Current evidence suggests that screening infants with gestational ages of 30 6/7 weeks or less (regardless of birth weight) and birth weights of 1250 g or less is a strategy with a very small likelihood that an unscreened baby would have treatable ROP. Individual centres may choose to extend birth weight screening criteria to 1500 g. Initial screening should be performed at 31 weeks' postmenstrual age in infants with gestational ages of 26 6/7 weeks or less at birth, and at four weeks' chronological age in infants with gestational ages of 27 weeks or more at birth by an ophthalmologist skilled in the detection of ROP. Follow-up examinations are conducted according to the ophthalmologist's recommendation. Infants with high-risk prethreshold ROP and threshold ROP are referred for retinal ablative therapy. Developing processes for ROP screening, documenting results and communicating results to parents as well as health professionals involved in the infant's care are important responsibilities for all nurseries providing care for preterm infants.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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".