MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306871214 · doi:10.3928/01913913-20220609-01

Characterization of Errors in Retinopathy of Prematurity Diagnosis by Ophthalmologists-in-Training in the United States and Canada

2022· article· en· W4306871214 on OpenAlex
Tala Al-Khaled, Samir Patel, Nita Valikodath, Karyn Jonas, Susan Ostmo, Rawan Al-Lozi, Joelle Hallak, J. Peter Campbell, Michael F. Chiang, R.V. Paul Chan

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Eye Institute
KeywordsMedicineRetinopathy of prematurityPediatricsProspective cohort studyDiseaseStage (stratigraphy)OptometrySurgeryInternal medicineGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To identify the prominent factors that lead to misdiagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) by ophthalmologists-in-training in the United States and Canada. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 32 ophthalmologists-in-training at six ophthalmology training programs in the United States and Canada. Twenty web-based cases of ROP using wide-field retinal images were presented, and ophthalmologists-in-training were asked to diagnose plus disease, zone, stage, and category for each eye. Responses were compared to a consensus reference standard diagnosis for accuracy, which was established by combining the clinical diagnosis and the image-based diagnosis by multiple experts. The types of diagnostic errors that occurred were analyzed with descriptive and chi-squared analysis. Main outcome measures were frequency of types (category, zone, stage, plus disease) of diagnostic errors; association of errors in zone, stage, and plus disease diagnosis with incorrectly identified category; and performance of ophthalmologists-in-training across postgraduate years. Results: Category of ROP was misdiagnosed at a rate of 48%. Errors in classification of plus disease were most commonly associated with misdiagnosis of treatment-requiring (plus error rate = 16% when treatment-requiring was correctly diagnosed vs 81% when underdiagnosed as type 2 or pre-plus; mean difference: 64.3; 95% CI: 51.9 to 76.7; P < .001) and type 2 or pre-plus (plus error rate = 35% when type 2 or pre-plus was correctly diagnosed vs 76% when overdiagnosed as treatment-requiring; mean difference: 41.0; 95% CI: 28.4 to 53.5; P < .001) disease. The diagnostic error rate of postgraduate year (PGY)-2 trainees was significantly higher than PGY-3 trainees (PGY-2 category error rate = 61% vs PGY-3 = 35%; mean difference, 25.4; 95% CI: 17.7 to 33.0; P < .001). Conclusions: Ophthalmologists-in-training in the United States and Canada misdiagnosed ROP nearly half of the time, with incorrect identification of plus disease as a leading cause. Integration of structured learning for ROP in residency education may improve diagnostic competency. [ J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus . 2023;60(5):337–343.]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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