Prevalence and Determinants of Diabetic Retinopathy among Persons ≥40 Years of Age with Diabetes in Qatar: A Community-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present the prevalence and determinants of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in persons 40 years and older with diabetes in Qatar. METHODS: This community-based survey was held in 2009 at 49 randomly selected clusters. Demographic details and history of diabetes mellitus (DM) and its management were collected by nurses. Ophthalmologists examined the retina by slit-lamp biomicroscopy using +90 D lens and/or indirect ophthalmoscopy. Digital photographs of retina were obtained. The best-corrected visual acuity of each eye was noted. Diabetic retinopathy was graded as mild, moderate, or severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or diabetic macular edema. RESULTS: We examined 540 (97.3%) participants with DM. Diabetes mellitus status of 487 persons could be confirmed from medical records. The age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of DR among the diabetic population 40 years and older was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.7-27.3), with 8192 cases of DR among patients with DM. Longer duration of diabetes (odds ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.10-1.19]) and poor glycemic control (odds ratio 1.12 [95% CI 1.02-1.23]) were risk factors for DR. Awareness of regular eye checkup was found in 62% of participants. Only 20% of persons with sight-threatening DR had undergone laser treatment in at least 1 eye. Visual acuity in the better eye was 6/6 to 6/18 in 90% of persons with DR. CONCLUSIONS: Universal and periodic eye screening of patients with diabetes is recommended in Qatar. Health promotion for primary prevention and resource review are needed for early detection and management of sight-threatening DR.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".