Submacular Choroidal Thickness Evaluation After Laser Photocoagulation For Diabetic Retinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \n \nPurpose:To evaluate subfoveal choroidal thickness before and after laser photocoagulation in diabetic retinopathy (DR) visualized by Spectral Domain OCT (SDOCT). \n \nMethods:A total of 15 patients affected by DR were involved in this prospective interventional study. Inclusion criteria comprehend DR complicated by significant macular edema or retinal ischemia. Exclusion criteria include media opacities, other vascular or inflammatory retinal pathologies. Seven patients received scatter laser photocoagulation for proliferative DR and eight patients focal or laser grid photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. By means of a SDOCT (OTI-OPKO, Toronto, Canada) experienced operators measured choroidal thickness in subfoveal area and 3mm away from the fovea in nasal and temporal region, after imaging enhancement procedures. Clinical measurements were performed at baseline, at day 7 and day 14 after laser treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the results. \n \nResults:Choroidal and retinal thickness OCT measurements were performed to all subjects on scheduled visits. Mean choroidal thickness at baseline was respectively 250,7 ± 60,6μm in subfoveal region, 166,4 ± 63μm nasal to fovea and 241,4 ± 66μm temporal to fovea; at day 7 was 280,8 ± 76μm (p=0.01), 180,8 ± 63μm (p>0.05) and 239,2 ± 67μm (p>0.05); at day 15, mean choroidal thickness was 246,3 ± 62μm (p=0.03), 171,8 ± 65μm (p>0.05) and 240 ± 68,8μm (p>0.05). Retinal macular thickness measured underwent to an overall variation during follow up from a baseline value of 286,4±60,01μm to 323±75,9μm at day 7 (p=0.03) and to 310,9±62,01μm at day 15 (p>0.05). \n \nConclusions:Our study showed at day 7 a statistically significant increase of choroidal thickness only in subfoveal region, subsequently decreased at day 14. This observation was associated to a significant increase of retinal thickness at day 7. These observations underline and confirm the involvement of choroidal tissue on different traumatic and inflammatory vitreoretinal events, as well as the role of new SDOCT to better evaluate and measure choroidal structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".