Delayed Presentation of Cataracts in Children: Are they Worth Operating Upon?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Childhood cataract is an important cause of avoidable blindness in children. The study aimed to investigate the outcome of surgery in cataracts with delayed presentation which had been operated upon as new pediatric ophthalmology centers were set up in India. METHODS: This was a retrospective interventional case series from a community eye care center in Western India. Demographic, surgical, pre-operative and post-operative details were obtained from the patients records and entered into Microsoft excel and statistical analysis conducted using SPSS-11 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Vision was tested 6 weeks after surgery. The predictors of good vision (> or =6/18) were identified by regression analysis. If the interval between detection of cataract in children and their presentation for surgery was more than 18 months for developmental and 6 months for congenital the cataract was defined having a delayed presentation. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty nine eyes of 437 children aged 2 months to 16 years were operated upon in 2004-2006. Preoperative vision was <3/60 in 405 (76.6%) eyes with cataract. Of these 529, 242 eyes were with delayed presentation of cataract (83 congenital and 149 other). 102 had up to 5 years, 91 had 6-10 years and 49 had >11 yrs delay in presentation. At 6 weeks following surgery, vision was > or = 6/18 in 36/93 (38.7%) of eyes with delayed presenting cataracts, as compared to 94/244 (38.5%) > or =6/18 in those without. CONCLUSION: Surgery for cataracts with delayed presentation helps to regain functional vision, which can be used for navigation and low vision aids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".