Exposure to Oral Fluoroquinolones and the Risk of Retinal Detachment: Retrospective Analyses of Two Large Healthcare Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent Canadian case-control study reported a 4.5-fold increased risk of retinal detachment (RD) during oral fluoroquinolone use. Of the fluoroquinolone-exposed cases, 83 % were exposed to ciprofloxacin. We sought to replicate this finding, and assess whether it applied to all fluoroquinolones. METHODS: In two large US healthcare databases, we performed three case-control analyses: one replicating the recent study; one addressing additional potential confounders; and one that increased sample size by dropping the Canadian study's requirement for a prior ophthalmologist visit. We also performed a self-controlled case-series (SCCS) analysis in which each subject served as his or her own comparator. RESULTS: In the replication case-control analyses, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for any exposure to fluoroquinolones or ciprofloxacin were approximately 1.2 in both databases, and were statistically significant, and the ORs for current exposure were modestly above 1 in one database, modestly below 1 in the other, and not statistically significant. In the other case-control analyses, the ORs were close to 1. In a post hoc age-stratified case-control analysis, we observed an association of RD with fluoroquinolone exposure among older subjects in one of the two databases. All estimates from the SCCS analyses were below 1.2 and none was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The present study does not confirm the recent Canadian study's finding of a strong relationship between RD and current exposure to fluoroquinolones. Instead, it found a modest association between RD and current or any exposure to fluoroquinolones in the case-control analyses, and no association in the SCCS analyses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".