Protruded retinal layers within the optic nerve head neuroretinal rim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the frequency with which retinal tissues other than the nerve fibre layer, hereafter referred to as protruded retinal layers (PRL), are a component of optical coherence tomography (OCT) neuroretinal rim measurements. METHODS: Ninety healthy (30 White, Black and Japanese, respectively) subjects were included in the study. A radial scan pattern (24 B-scans centred on Bruch's membrane opening [BMO]) was used. For each of the 48 minimum rim width (MRW) measurement points, we determined whether PRL were present, absent or indeterminate. When present, the proportion of PRL within the MRW was quantified. RESULTS: Protruded retinal layers were present in 503 (11.6%), absent in 3805 (88.1%) and indeterminate in 12 (0.3%) measurement points. Overall, 69 (76.6%) subjects had ≥1 points with PRL, with White subjects having the highest frequency and Japanese the lowest (29 [97%] and 18 [60%], respectively; p < 0.01). PRL were present in one-third of points in the temporal sector, but ≤5% in other sectors. When present, the median PRL thickness was 53.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 33.0 to 78.5) μm, representing 20.6 (IQR: 13.0 to 28.5)% of MRW. Globally, the median PRL thickness comprised 1.3 (IQR: 0.2 to 3.5)% of the MRW; however, in the temporal sector, it exceeded 30% of MRW in some subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Protruded retinal layers are a component of MRW measurements in most normal subjects, occurring in almost 12% of all measurement points analysed. There were racial variations in the presence of PRL and a significantly higher frequency of PRL in the temporal sector.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".