MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286250609 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2022.100204

Assessment of the Classification of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Severity from the Northern Ireland Sensory Ageing Study Using a Measure of Dark Adaptation

2022· article· en· W4286250609 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bethany E. Higgins, Giovanni Montesano, David P. Crabb, Timos T. Naskas, Katie Graham, Usha Chakravarthy, Frank Kee, David M. Wright, Ruth Hogg

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionEconomic and Social Research CouncilOffice of the First Minister and Deputy First MinisterQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastDepartment of Health and Social CareDiabetes UKUK Research and InnovationCollege of OptometristsCentre for Ageing Research and Development in IrelandUnited Kingdom Clinical Research CollaborationPublic Health AgencyMacular SocietyWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilAtlantic Philanthropies
KeywordsInterquartile rangeMacular degenerationMedicineOphthalmologyFundus photographyFundus (uterus)AgeingOptometryRetinalInternal medicineFluorescein angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To assess the differences in rod-mediated dark adaptation (RMDA) between different grades of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) severity using an OCT-based criterion compared with those of AMD severity using the Beckman color fundus photography (CFP)-based classification and to assess the association between the presence of subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDDs) and RMDA at different grades of AMD severity using an OCT-based classification. Design Cross-sectional study. Participants Participants from the Northern Ireland Sensory Ageing study (Queen's University Belfast). Methods Complete RMDA (rod-intercept time [RIT]) data, CFP, and spectral-domain OCT images were extracted. Participants were stratified into 4 Beckman groups (omitting late-stage AMD) and 3 OCT-based groups. The presence and stage of SDDs were identified using OCT. Main Outcome Measures Rod-intercept time data (age-corrected). Results Data from 459 participants (median [interquartile range] age, 65 [59–71] years) were stratified by both the classifications. Subretinal drusenoid deposits were detected in 109 eyes. The median (interquartile range) RMDA for the Beckman classification (Beckman 0–3, with 3 being intermediate age-related macular degeneration [iAMD]) groups was 6.0 (4.5–8.7), 6.6 (4.7–10.5), 5.7 (4.4–7.4), and 13.2 (6–21.1) minutes, respectively. OCT classifications OCT0–OCT2 yielded different median (interquartile range) values: 5.8 (4.5–8.5), 8.4 (5.2–13.3), and 11.1 (5.3–20.1) minutes, respectively. After correcting for age, eyes in Beckman 3 (iAMD) had statistically significantly worse RMDA than eyes in the other Beckman groups ( P ≤ 0.005 for all), with no statistically significant differences between the other Beckman groups. Similarly, after age correction, eyes in OCT2 had worse RMDA than eyes in OCT0 ( P ≤ 0.001) and OCT1 ( P < 0.01); however, there was no statistically significant difference between eyes in OCT0 and eyes in OCT1 ( P = 0.195). The presence of SDDs was associated with worse RMDA in OCT2 ( P < 0.01) but not in OCT1 ( P = 0.285). Conclusions Eyes with a structural definition of iAMD have delayed RMDA, regardless of whether a CFP- or OCT-based criterion is used. In this study, after correcting for age, the RMDA did not differ between groups of eyes defined to have early AMD or normal aging, regardless of the classification. The presence of SDDs has some effect on RMDA at different grades of AMD severity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207