Retinal hemodynamic changes in diabetic macular edema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To report the 1 year prospective hemodynamic results in a cohort of patients with varying levels of risk for the development of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to correlate these parameters to systemic changes in blood pressure and diabetes control. Methods The sample comprised 4 groups. Group 1: 37 non‐diabetic controls; Group 2: 42 patients with no diabetic retinopathy (DR); Group 3: 38 patients with DR but no DME; Group 4: 27 patients with DME. Retinal arteriolar diameter, velocity, maximum‐to‐minimum (max:min) velocity ratio and flow were measured using the Canon Laser Blood Flowmeter. Blood pressure, blood and urine tests were taken and correlated to changes in retinal hemodynamics. A sub‐group of patients with progressive DR was analyzed separately. Results There was a trend for elevation of the max:min velocity ratio (p=0.060) with increasing risk of DME at baseline which was significant on follow‐up (p=0.020). Diameter decreased for all groups (p<0.056) except for patients with DME. Changes in retinal blood velocity, max:min velocity ratio and flow were correlated to blood pressure mostly in patients with DR and DME. Blood albumin level was negatively correlated to retinal blood velocity and flow in the DME group. Patients with progressive DME had elevated blood velocity and flow. Conclusion Patients with DME have a higher max:min velocity ratio. Changes in retinal hemodynamics were correlated to changes in blood pressure and were negatively correlated to changes in blood albumin. The results indicate a loss of vascular compliance with diabetes, particularly in patients with DME, and elevated retinal perfusion in patients with progressive DME.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".