Influence of Clinically Invisible, but Optical Coherence Tomography Detected, Optic Disc Margin Anatomy on Neuroretinal Rim Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that most eyes have regionally variable extensions of Bruch's membrane (BM) inside the clinically identified disc margin (DM) that are clinically and photographically invisible. We studied the impact of these findings on DM- and BM opening (BMO)-derived neuroretinal rim parameters. METHODS: Disc stereo-photography and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT, 24 radial B-scans centered on the optic nerve head) were performed on 30 glaucoma patients and 10 age-matched controls. Photographs were colocalized to SD-OCT data such that the DM and BMO could be visualized in each B-scan. Three parameters were computed: (1) DM-horizontal rim width (HRW), the distance between the DM and internal limiting membrane (ILM) along the DM reference plane; (2) BMO-HRW, the distance between BMO and ILM along the BMO reference plane; and (3) BMO-minimum rim width (MRW), the minimum distance between BMO and ILM. Rank-order correlations of sectors ranked by rim width and spatial concordance measured as angular distances between equivalently ranked sectors were derived. RESULTS: The average DM position was external to BMO in all quadrants, except inferotemporally. There were significant sectoral differences among all three rim parameters. DM-HRW and BMO-HRW sector ranks were better correlated (median ρ = 0.84) than DM-HRW and BMO-MRW (median ρ = 0.55), or BMO-HRW and BMO-MRW (median ρ = 0.60) ranks. Sectors with the narrowest BMO-MRW were infrequently the same as those with the narrowest DM-HRW or BMO-HRW. CONCLUSIONS: BMO-MRW quantifies the neuroretinal rim from a true anatomical outer border and accounts for its variable trajectory at the point of measurement.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".