Retinoblastoma: geographic distribution and presentation at a tertiary eye care centre in Kathmandu, Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several aspects of retinoblastoma in Nepal remain enigmatic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the demographic and geographic distribution, clinical presentation, and treatment methods of retinoblastoma at a tertiary level ophthalmic institution in Kathmandu, Nepal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all the patients diagnosed with retinoblastoma at Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology from July 2004 to June 2008 was performed. The main outcome measures included region of residence, treatment options and histopathological findings. The histopathological analysis was performed on enucleated and exenterated specimens. STATISTICS: The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS Version 11.5. Descriptive statistics are represented as mean ± standard deviation. All tests were two-sided and the P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Thirty patients presented with retinoblastoma during the study period. The mean age at presentation was 2.5 ± 1.6 years (range five months to seven years). Ten of the 12 patients who presented with bilateral retinoblastoma (83 %) were from the Terai region of Nepal. The ratio of unilateral to bilateral cases in the Terai region was 1:2. This differed significantly with the ratio in the hilly region (Fisher's Exact Test, p = 0.0012). The mean duration of symptoms before presentation was 2.5 3.2 months (range three days to 12 months). Twenty-four patients (80 %) presented with leukocoria. Eleven patients (36.6 %) presented with leukocoria as their only symptom. Ninety-seven percent of the patients underwent either enucleation (90 %) or exenteration (6.7 %) of at least one eye. CONCLUSION: Bilateral retinoblastoma is more prevalent in the Terai region of Nepal. The majority of the patients present with leucokoria and are treated with enucleation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".