A current overview of diagnosis and treatment in retinopathy of prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) was first defined by Terry in 1942 (retrolental fibroplasia) (1). The disease is one of the most important causes of blindness in childhood, in both developed and emerging countries (2). Current data indicate that while blindness rate due to ROP varies from country to country, ROP developed in an estimated 184,700 preterm infants around the world in 2010. Some 20,000 infants experienced severe vision loss or blindness as result of ROP (3). Birth week and low birth weight are the most important risk factors among many that have been defined (4). Screening protocols developed over the years have made great progress in early diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, and the American Association of Certified Orthoptists began to publish guidelines about first examination week, screening, and follow-up examinations in 1995. Revisions of 2000 and 2006 were updated in 2013, and it now includes statement that all infants born at 30 th gestational week or earlier or with birth weight of 1500 g or less should be screened (5). However, screening is also appropriate for infants with greater weight or other gestational age at birth who are considered at risk by pediatrician. Many countries have used international information as a base to create follow-up protocols in the light of national data. Canadian guideline also calls for screening infants with gestational age of 30 weeks or less, while guidelines of UK, Germany and Brazil recommend screening infants with gestational age of 32 weeks or less. Birth weight of 1500 g is independent criterion common to all countries; infants under 1500 g should be screened regardless of birth week.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".