Incidence and Characteristics of Patients with Visual Impairment due to Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion in a Representative Canadian Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is an obstruction of the retinal venous system, and macular edema (ME) is a complication of RVO that can lead to blindness. The Canadian incidence of visual impairment (VI) due to ME secondary to RVO is unknown. This observational, retrospective study used records from the Southwestern Ontario database to observe the annual incidence, demographics, and comorbidity characteristics of patients with VI due to ME secondary to RVO. From 47,166 patients, 73 with RVO (>40 years old) were identified: 53 with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), 20 with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). The annual incidence of VI (visual acuity <20/40 in Snellen equivalent) due to ME secondary to BRVO was (mean (95%CI)) 0.056% (0.011-0.072), and to CRVO was 0.021% (0.008-0.081). Furthermore, a greater proportion of RVO patients had hypertension (68% versus 14%) or dyslipidemia (16% versus 10%), when compared to a healthy control cohort of 76,077 subjects (P < 0.05). This study presents a description of the characteristics of patients with VI due to ME secondary to RVO in a real-world Canadian setting. The results demonstrate that BRVO was more frequent than CRVO, and that RVO in this patient population was associated with several vascular comorbidities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".