Type I retinopathy of prematurity in infants with birth weight less than 1251 g: Incidence and risk factors for its development in a nursery in Kuwait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the rate of acute retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and Type I ROP among infants with birth weight (BW) <1251 g and identify the risk factors for the development of Type I ROP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of ROP records of infants with BW <1251 g was performed to identify infants with acute ROP and Type I ROP. Infants with Type I ROP were compared with those without Type I ROP to assess the risk factors for the development of Type I ROP. P < 0.05 was statistically significant. Multivariate analysis was performed and odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 207 infants with BW <1251 g, acute ROP occurred in 154 infants (74.4%) and Type I ROP in 95 eyes of 50 infants (24.4%). The numbers of infants with BW <750 g and BW <1000 g were 19.3% and 58.4%, respectively, and the incidences of Type I ROP were 50% and 36.4%, respectively, among them. Forty-four (46.3%) eyes were treated at stage 2+ ROP in zone I or II. All the eyes treated for Type I ROP showed complete regression. Gestational age at birth (OR 0.657, 95% CI: 0.521-0.827; P < 0.0001) and number of ventilated days (OR 1.017, 95% CI: 1.005-1.029; P = 0.006) were identified as independent risk factors for the development of Type I ROP. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of Type I ROP in this study is higher than that in previous studies due to the higher number of infants with BW <1000 g in our cohort and the treatment of more eyes with stage 2+ ROP. However, all the treated eyes had a favorable outcome. Gestational age at birth and number of ventilated days were independent risk factors for the development of Type I ROP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".