THE CLINICAL UTILITY OF A NON-MYDRIATIC RETINAL CAMERA IN A DIABETES CLINIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e aim to evaluate a non-mydriatic retinal camera as a safe and efficacious screening tool, for diabetic retinopathy, in diabetes centers. Materials and Methods: 221 consecutive patients attending a Diabetes Center submitted to retinal photographs using a non-mydriatic camera. Patients were included if they had not had previous laser therapy and if they had a formal ophthalmologic consultation within 6 months of the photography Four endocrinologists reviewed the retinal photographs and recommended an interval (urgent referral, early referral, non-referral) for ophthalmologic assessment. Endocrinologists’ grades were compared against the gold standard of ophthalmological findings. The endocrinologists were privy only to the patient’s age, type and duration of diabetes mellitus. Results: Twenty-seven cases were deemed as requiring early referral by the ophthalmologists. The endocrinologists agreed with ophthalmologist referral times in 27, 26, 23 and 27 cases respectively. Two cases requiring urgent referral according to the ophthalmologists were also judged as requiring urgent referral by all endocrinologists. A mean sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 88.5%-100%) was attained. Conclusions: The use of a non-mydriatic camera to determine need for ophthalmologic referral was found to be safe and efficacious, with no serious delays in referral noted. On average this tool can safely defer 53.5% of routine ophthalmologic referrals without any risk to the patient’s eyesight.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".