Fractal Dimension and Retinal Pathology: A Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the fractal nature of retinal blood vessels, the retinal fractal dimension is a natural parameter for researchers to explore and has garnered interest as a potential diagnostic tool. This review aims to summarize the current scientific evidence regarding the relationship between fractal dimension and retinal pathology and thus assess the clinical value of retinal fractal dimension. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a literature search for research articles was conducted in several internet databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus). This led to a result of 28 studies included in the final review, which were analyzed via meta-analysis to determine whether the fractal dimension changes significantly in retinal disease versus normal individuals. From the meta-analysis, summary effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were derived for each disease category. The results for diabetic retinopathy and myopia suggest decreased retinal fractal dimension for those pathologies with the association for other diseases such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and glaucoma remaining uncertain. Due to heterogeneity in imaging/fractal analysis setups used between studies, it is recommended that standardized retinal fractal analysis procedures be implemented in order to facilitate future meta-analyses.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it