MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A worldwide survey of retinopathy of prematurity screening

2017· article· en· W2752340117 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinopathy of prematurityMedicineDeveloping countryOptometryFamily medicinePediatricsDeveloped countryEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPregnancyGestational agePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To ascertain which countries in the world have retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening programmes and guidelines and how these were developed. METHODS: An email database was created and requests were sent to ophthalmologists in 141 nations to complete an online survey on ROP screening in their country. RESULTS: Representatives from 92/141 (65%) countries responded. 78/92 (85%) have existing ROP screening programmes, and 68/78 (88%) have defined screening criteria. Some countries have limited screening and those areas which have no screening or for which there is inadequate knowledge are mainly Southeast Asia, Africa and some former Soviet states. DISCUSSION: With the increasing survival of premature babies in lower-middle-income and low-income countries, it is important to ensure that adequate ROP screening and treatment is in place. This information will help organisations focus their resources on those areas most in need.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it