Zone I and posterior zone II retinopathy of prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a paucity of literature describing the stages in zone I and posterior zone II retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Aims: The aim was to describe and compare the clinical presentation and progression to the treatment of infants with zone I and posterior zone II ROP. Settings and Design: Retrospective case series at a single tertiary care Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Subjects and Methods: Patient information collected included: Gestational age, birth, weight, postmenstrual age (PMA) at first ROP diagnosis, and PMA at treatment. Digital retinal photographs were also analyzed when available. Statistical Analysis Used: Student's t-test, Chi-square analysis. Results: Totally, 14 of 47 (29.8%) infants were classified with zone I ROP and 33 (70.2%) as posterior zone II ROP. The mean PMA at first ROP diagnosis was 33 weeks in both zones. The incidence of treatment was higher in the zone I ROP (85.7%) compared to posterior zone II ROP (48.6%). About 50% of infants with zone I ROP had an elapsed time of 1 week from first presentation to a disease requiring treatment, compared with 6.25% of posterior zone II ROP infants. By 2 weeks, the proportion of posterior zone II infants requiring treatment rose to 56%. Sequential and nonsequential analysis of retinal images illustrated the similar atypical presentation of ROP in both zones. Conclusion: The presentation of infants with ROP in the zone I and posterior zone II are very similar. The clinical course in the zone I ROP is faster and more aggressive than posterior zone II. Due to their atypical morphology and rapid progression, appropriate recognition, and classification of ROP is needed for adequate and timely treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".