Assessment of WINROP algorithm as screening tool for preterm infants in Manitoba to detect retinopathy of prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Developing less invasive methods for early detection of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is vital to minimizing blindness in premature infants. Lofqvist and colleagues developed a computer-based ROP risk algorithm (WINROP) (https://winrop.com), which detects downtrends in postnatal weight gain that correlate with the development of sight-threatening ROP. The aim of this study is to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of the WINROP algorithm to detect vision-threatening ROP. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review study between January 2008 and December 2013. This study was conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit in Children's Hospital at Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The study included preterm infants, less than 32 weeks' gestation, who were admitted to the hospital during the study period. The included 215 infants were eligible for ROP screening and had sufficient data to be entered into the WINROP algorithm. Infants were screened by a paediatric ophthalmologist for retinopathy of prematurity. The body weight of infants was measured weekly and entered into the WINROP algorithm; the sensitivity and the specificity of the WINROP algorithm were assessed. RESULTS: The mean gestational age was 28.6 ± 1.8 weeks. The mean body weight was 1244 ± 294 g. The sensitivity of the WINROP algorithm to detect vision-threatening retinopathy of prematurity in our cohort was 90% (P=0.021) with a specificity of 60% (P=0.002). CONCLUSION: The WINROP algorithm lacks sufficient sensitivity to be used clinically in our population. The algorithm needs to be reassessed in contemporary populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".