MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postoperative Photoreceptor Integrity Following Pneumatic Retinopexy vs Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Retinal Detachment Repair

2021· article· en· W3154655654 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Ophthalmology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoKensington HealthDalhousie UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVitrectomyPars planaRetinal detachmentOphthalmologyVisual acuityExternal limiting membraneOptical coherence tomographyRetinalMetamorphopsiaSurgeryRetinal pigment epithelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) is associated with superior visual acuity and reduced vertical metamorphopsia compared with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). It is important to determine postoperative photoreceptor integrity with both surgical techniques. OBJECTIVE: To compare photoreceptor integrity on spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) between PnR and PPV at 12 months postoperatively. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc analysis of the Pneumatic Retinopexy Versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized Trial (PIVOT) conducted between August 2012 and May 2017 at St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Primary RRDs with specific criteria were included. Data were analyzed between April and August 2020. INTERVENTION: Randomization to PnR vs PPV stratified by macular status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference in proportion of patients with discontinuity of the ellipsoid zone (EZ) and external limiting membrane (ELM) between groups assessed independently by 2 masked graders at an external masked image reading center. RESULTS: A total of 150 participants completed the 12-month follow-up visit. A total of 145 patients (72 PPV and 73 PnR) had gradable spectral-domain optical coherence tomography at 12 months. Analysis of the central 3-mm (foveal) scans found that 24% (n = 17 of 72) vs 7% (n = 5 of 73) displayed EZ discontinuity (difference, 17%; odds ratio [OR], 4.204; 95% CI, 1.458-12.116; P = .005) and 20% (n = 14 of 71) vs 6% (n = 4 of 73) displayed ELM discontinuity (difference, 14%; OR, 4.237; 95% CI, 1.321-13.587; P = .01) in the PPV and PnR groups, respectively. Analysis of the 6-mm (foveal and nonfoveal) scans revealed that EZ and ELM discontinuity was greater in the PPV vs PnR groups (EZ, 32% [n = 23 of 72] vs 11% [n = 8 of 73]; difference, 21%; OR, 3.814; 95% CI, 1.573-9.249; P = .002; ELM, 32% [n = 23 of 71] vs 18% [n = 13 of 73]; difference, 14%; OR, 2.211; 95% CI, 1.015-4.819; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Discontinuity of the EZ and ELM was more common at 12 months postoperatively following PPV vs PnR for RRD repair. The findings of this post hoc analysis suggest that less discontinuity of the EZ and ELM may provide an anatomic basis for the previously reported superior functional outcomes with PnR, although the analysis does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01639209.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it