Retinal Arterial Diameter Changes in Progressive and Nonprogressive Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if the degree of retinal arterial diameter change is different between patients with progressive and nonprogressive open-angle glaucoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 44 eyes of 44 open-angle glaucoma patients (mean age, 67.5 years; age range, 52-84 years; mean follow-up period, 4.9 years; follow-up range, 1.3-7.5 years) were included. The change in arterial diameter between the baseline and the most recent follow-up optic disc photograph was determined. The diameter of the 4 major arteries was measured at the optic disc margin and at the thinnest and broadest locations within 1 optic disc diameter from the disc margin. Patients were stratified into progressing and nonprogressing groups according to visual field and optic disc criteria. RESULTS: Visual field progression was observed in 13 (30%) patients and optic disc progression in 24 (55%) patients. On average, the arterial diameters at the edge of the optic disc decreased significantly by 2.37% (95% CI, -3.31% to -1.41%) per year of follow-up (P<0.001). No significant difference in generalized or focal arterial narrowing was observed between progressive and nonprogressive groups regardless of the criterion used (P>0.462). With this sample, the power to detect a 10% difference in arterial narrowing between the 2 groups was 66%. There was no relationship between the rates of visual field progression and arterial diameter change in the whole group (P = 0.171) or in groups segregated into progressing and nonprogressing patients (P>0.104). CONCLUSION: Arterial diameters decreased in both progressive and nonprogressive glaucoma. In this study, there was little evidence that arterial narrowing was more pronounced in progressive disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".