The correlation between the vitreomacular adhesion and exudative age-related macular degenerationa meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the correlation between the vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods A literature research was performed in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang database from January 2000 to December 2016. Case-control studies on the relationship between VMA or posterior vitreous detachment and exudative AMD were included in this analysis. Literature screening and data extraction were performed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The qualities of the literatures were evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Seven literatures were selected into meta-analysis. The NOS score was 9 points in 1 article, 8 scores in 4 articles, 7 points in 2 articles. A total of 947 eyes with exudative AMD, 638 eyes with dry AMD, and 618 eyes with controls were included. The correlation between exudative AMD and VMA were analyzed using the software Review manager 5.3. Results The prevalence of VMA in exudative AMD eyes was higher than that in controls [odds ratio (OR)=2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.19 - 3.84, P=0.010] and dry AMD eyes (OR=2.24, 95%CI=1.24 - 4.03, P=0.007). There was no difference in PVD prevalence among exudative AMD eyes, dry AMD eyes (OR=0.44, 95%CI=0.16 - 1.20, P=0.110) and controls (OR=0.70, 95%CI=0.41 - 1.18, P=0.180). Conclusion There is correlation between VMA and exudative AMD. Key words: Wet macular degeneration/etiology; Vitreous detachment; Meta-analysis
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".