En Face Choroidal Vascularity in Both Eyes of Patients with Unilateral Central Serous Chorioretinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the choroidal vascularity analyzing en face optical coherence tomography (OCT) images in patients with unilateral central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). We retrospectively evaluated 40 eyes of 20 CSC patients and 20 eyes of 10 gender- and age-matched healthy individuals. The sample consisted of: (1) CSC affected eyes; (2) unaffected fellow eyes; (3) healthy eyes. Multiple cross-sectional enhanced depth imaging OCT scans were obtained to create a volume scan. En face scans of the whole choroid were obtained at 5μm intervals and were binarized to calculate the choroidal vascularity index (CVI). The latter, defined as the proportion of the luminal area to the total choroidal area, was calculated at the level of choriocapillaris, superficial, medium and deep layers. No significant differences between choriocapillaris, superficial, medium and deep CVI were found in both eyes of CSC patients, whereas a significant different trend of changes was found in healthy eyes. Nevertheless, the en face CVI shows no difference between affected fellow and healthy eyes. In conclusion, CSC-affected eyes and fellow eyes showed a similar vascular architecture, with no statistical difference between all choroidal layers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".