Grating Visual Acuity Results in the Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare grating (resolution) visual acuity at 6 years of age in eyes that received early treatment (ET) for high-risk prethreshold retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) with that in eyes that underwent conventional management (CM). METHODS: In a randomized clinical trial, infants with bilateral, high-risk prethreshold ROP (n = 317) had one eye undergo ET and the other eye undergo CM, with treatment only if ROP progressed to threshold severity. For asymmetric cases (n = 84), the high-risk prethreshold eye was randomized to ET or CM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Grating visual acuity measured at 6 years of age by masked testers using Teller acuity cards. RESULTS: Monocular grating acuity results were obtained from 317 of 370 surviving children (85.6%). Analysis of grating acuity results for all study participants with high-risk prethreshold ROP showed no statistically significant overall benefit of ET (18.1% vs 22.8% unfavorable outcomes; P = .08). When the 6-year grating acuity results were analyzed according to a clinical algorithm (high-risk types 1 and 2 prethreshold ROP), a benefit was seen in type 1 eyes (16.4% vs 25.2%; P = .004) undergoing ET, but not in type 2 eyes (21.3% vs 15.9%; P = .29). CONCLUSION: Early treatment of eyes with type 1 ROP improves grating acuity outcomes, but ET for eyes with type 2 ROP does not. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL MEDICINE: Type 1 eyes should be treated early; however, based on acuity results at 6 years of age, type 2 eyes should be cautiously monitored for progression to type 1 ROP. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00027222.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".