Volumetric Measurement of Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Masslike Structures in Patients with Optic Disc Drusen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To develop a method to determine the volume of peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid masslike structures (PHOMS) and to examine the correlation between PHOMS and anatomic optic nerve head characteristics in a large cohort of patients with optic disc drusen (ODD). Design Retrospective, observational study of patients with ODD. Participants Patients with ODD seen in a 3-year period. Methods We determined the prevalence of PHOMS. We then developed a method to calculate the volume of PHOMS and measured this in all patients where radial scans on OCT were available. We analyzed the correlation between PHOMS volume and patient age, size of Bruch's membrane opening (BMO), ODD visibility, and anatomic location of ODD in the optic nerve. Main Outcome Measures Prevalence and characteristics of PHOMS in patients with ODD. Results In 247 (77%) eyes with ODD, PHOMS were found. Among these, 80% were in the first decade of life, 87% were in the second decade, 89% were in the third decade, 85% were in the fourth decade, 74% were in the fifth decade, 73% were in the sixth decade, 58% were in the seventh decade, 40% were in the eighth decade, and 0% were in the ninth decade. The ophthalmoscopic visibility of ODD increased with age. The volume of PHOMS decreased with age, but with no correlation to the size of BMO. The median volume of PHOMS was 0.27 mm 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.13–0.49 mm 3 ). Predominantly, PHOMS were observed in the nasal peripapillary area (87.5% nasal, 78.5% superior, 67% inferior, and 63.5% temporal). Conclusions In patients with ODD, PHOMS are seen frequently, with the highest prevalence in younger individuals. The volume of PHOMS decreases with age, and PHOMS are seen more frequently in patients with superficial ODD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".