Intraocular and Interocular Symmetry in Normal Retinal Capillary Perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate retinal capillary perfusion in different areas of the posterior pole (intraocular symmetry) and to compare capillary perfusion between the right and left eyes (interocular symmetry). METHODS: The study consisted of 52 clinically healthy patients between the ages of 45 and 74 years. Good quality images were obtained in 30 patients. By using scanning laser Doppler flowmetry with the Heidelberg Retina Flowmeter, three 10 degree scans were obtained from the fovea and superior and inferior retina of the study eye (for intraocular symmetry) and from the fovea of the fellow eye (for interocular comparison). Values of volume, flow, and velocity were recorded from each of these areas. Repeated measures analysis of variance, with Bonferroni correction, was used for groupwise comparison between areas in the study eye. Paired t tests, with Bonferroni correction, were used to compare nonfoveolar perfusion between the right and left eyes for each patient. RESULTS: Capillary volume in the foveola was significantly less than that in areas superior and inferior and 3 degrees nasal and temporal, and it was found to increase with eccentricity in the macular region. Only 2 of 30 patients had significant interocular differences between the extrafoveolar areas. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in retinal capillary perfusion were found across the macular region and corresponded with the increase in capillary beds. The Heidelberg Retina Flowmeter also measured the expected decrease in volume at the foveolar avascular zone. There were no significant interocular differences in perfusion. Eye movements, media opacities, and poor tear film quality had a deleterious effect on image quality.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".