Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in Pakistan: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Primary aim was to review the literature on the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and Vision threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) in Pakistan. METHODS: A search of the bibliographic databases (Medline, Pub med, and Google scholar) was conducted from 1990 to March 2017. Articles about prevalence of DR and VTDR in Pakistan were retrieved and scrutinized. The studies satisfying the inclusion/exclusion criteria were considered for detail review. RESULTS: Forty one articles on prevalence of DR were traced out. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were met in 29 studies. In selected studies (29), pooled Prevalence of DR was found to be 28.78% with a variation of 10.6% to 91.3%. Out of 29 studies, DR was classified in 19 studies. Pooled Prevalence of VTDR in these 19 studies was found to be 28.2% (variation of 4% to 46.3%) of patient with retinopathy and 8.6% of all diabetics. CONCLUSION: A great variation in the values of DR and VTDR was observed in this study. Researchers suggest a community based study with uniform methodology to find out a comparable value of prevalence of DR and VTDR in all provinces of Pakistan.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".