MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288067299 · doi:10.33140/jcrc.07.07.02

Clinical pattern of retinal detachment at the university of gondar tertiary eye care and training center, north-west ethiopia

2022· article· en· W4288067299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Review & Case Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinal detachmentTertiary careIncidence (geometry)Eye careOphthalmologyDiabetic retinopathyProspective cohort studyQuarter (Canadian coin)Family historyGlaucomaPediatricsOptometrySurgeryRetinalDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Due to increment in volume of cataract surgery and diabetic retinopathy, the incidence of retinal detachment (RD) is expected to rise in the future. However, little is known about the clinical patterns and risk factor of RD in Ethiopia. This study was aimed to determine the clinical pattern and risk factors of RD at University of Gondar Tertiary eye care and training center (UOG-TECTC). Methods: A hospital based prospective cross sectional study was done involving all consecutive patients with retinal detachment seen over six months period at the UOG-TECTC. Structured questionnaire was used to extract the required data which included demography, ophthalmic history and clinical examination results. Data were entered into SPSS version 20 and analyzed. Results: A total of 73 eyes of 65 patients with RD were analyzed. Two-third of patients were males 42(64.6%) and the median age was 49 years. Rhegmatogenous RD (RRD) was the commonest type of RD found in 58(89.2%) patients. Three quarter of the patients, 49 (75 %), came after 1 month of the symptom occurrence; out of which 20 (41%) visited the center after 1year duration. The commonest identified risk factors were trauma 19(29%) followed by pseudophakia 11(17%). More than three-quarter of the patients 53(81.5%) had detached macula and 60 (92.3%) of the involved eyes were blind at presentation. Conclusion and recommendations: RRD was the commonest type of RD seen in our patients. Majority of the patients visited our center late after macular detachment and trauma was the commonest risk factor. People should be educated to seek health care immediately after the onset of symptoms. Ocular safety precautions should be advised to decrease the risk of ocular trauma. The center should be equipped to manage patients with RD.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Review & Case ReportsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207