Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Visual Disturbance among Diabetic Patient in Outpatient Clinic in Elmek Nimer University Hospital 2014- Sudan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive cross-sectional community based was conducted to assess the prevalence and associated risk factors of visual disturbance among diabetic patient in outpatient clinic in Elmek nimer hospital, in the period from April -December 2014.In this study 90 diabetic patients were included.They are selected by use probability method of sampling (simple random sampling).Data was collected by two tools (Selfadministered questionnaire, snellen test chart).The present study reveal that more than two third of study group (68.9%, 66.7%) were female and their age more than 45years, respectively.More than quarters of them (28.9%) are primary school.the highly significant statistical relation had been found between the level of education and diabetes follow up (p-value 0.05).The collective evidence from this study showed that (64.4 %) of study population had Type 2 of diabetes.More than two third of patients (71.1%) their duration of diabetes between 5-10 years.The highly proportion (53.3%) of study population use Oral hypoglycemic agent.In contrast to more than quarter (26.5%) of them had hypertension.Therefore important that effort should made using the media to create diabetic awareness in rural areas with less health services and emphasize the importance of dietary program .Less than two third (61.8%) of study population were performing eye examination by physician.Majority (71.1%) of study population experience of visual disturbance recently.This study explains that less than quarter (24.4%, 22.2%) of study population had developed retinopathy and cataract, respectively.It has been found from this study (25.6%) of study population had mild vision loss with eye equity 6/18 and only (13.3%) had profound vision loss.Finally, the study recommend that, Locally educational programmes are highly needed to reduce the risk of visual impairment and blindness among diabetics and Systematic screening for diabetic retinal disease should be provided for all people with diabetes and should be screened at least annually.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".