Outcomes of combined treatments in patients with retinal arterial macroaneurysm
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
PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of the combined approach between intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and focal laser photocoagulation (FLP) in the treatment of symptomatic retinal arterial macroaneurysm (RAM). METHODS: A total of 10 patients were included in this clinical case series report. They were diagnosed with symptomatic RAM (one eye in each) and assessed by a comprehensive ophthalmologic examination, including fluorescein angiography (FA), optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A), and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA). All patients were treated with an IVR followed by an FLP 2 weeks later. If necessary, a second IVR was given 1 month after the first one (or 2 weeks after the first FLP), which was followed by a second FLP treatment 2 weeks later in the needed cases. All cases were followed up for 6 months after the last treatment. RESULTS: Both the retina hemorrhage and edema were resolved by the treatment. No ocular and/or systemic side effects were evident, and no recrudescence of RAM was seen within the 6 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The combined treatment of IVRs and FLPs was successful in the management of symptomatic RAM.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it