Hyperreflective Stress Lines and Macular Holes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the prevalence of a central hyperreflective line in eyes with full-thickness macular holes (FTMH) and lamellar macular holes (LMH) and to elucidate the pathoanatomic importance of this optical coherence tomography (OCT) sign. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with FTMH and LMH at the Stein Eye Institute. Clinical data was collected and SD-OCT volume scans were analyzed for the presence of a central vertical hyperreflective line in 3 separate cohorts: patients with SD-OCT preceding FTMH development, patients with SD-OCT after pars plana vitrectomy (PPVT) treatment for FTMH, and patients with SD-OCT of LMH. Results: In total, 93 eyes with FTMH and 88 eyes with LMH were identified. Of the 93 FTMH eyes, SD-OCT volume scans were available before development of the FTMH in 12 eyes. Of these, 6 (50%) displayed a vertical hyperreflective line preceding the development of the FTMH. Fifty-one eyes underwent PPVT with resolution of the FTMH, and 26 displayed a hyperreflective line after resolution (51%). Of the 88 eyes with LMH, 22 displayed a hyperreflective line (25%). All hyperreflective lines were noted at the central fovea. Conclusions: SD-OCT illustrated the presence of a central vertical hyperreflective line preceding FTMH and after resolution of FTMH after PPVT in approximately one-half of cases, and concurrent with LMH in 25% of cases. This vertical hyperreflective line may represent an early SD-OCT marker for the development of FTMH, and may be a sign of central foveal dehiscence owing to disruption of the Muller cell cone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".