The state of refraction in prematurely born children with retinopathy depending on treatment methods used (diode laser and anti-VEGF) and selected demographic characteristics – observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The authors present the prevalence of refractive errors in premature infants, demonstrating the relationship between refractive development and selected demographic characteristics and the forms of treatment used: diode laser, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and combination therapy. Material and methods: The study included 56 healthy children without retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and 63 children with ROP. Ophthalmologic evaluation and diagnosis were performed according to the International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity assessed in Ret-Cam 3. Treatment of ROP was carried out according to the guidelines of the Polish Ophthalmological Society using a diode laser (IRIDEX IQ 810) and an anti-VEGF intravitreal preparation (ranibizumab, Lucentis) at a reduced dose of 0.18 mg. Refractive measurements were taken at 7 months of age using a handheld computerized autorefractometer (Retinomax) after 1% tropicamide cycloplegia. Results: A statistically significantly higher prevalence of high myopia (p = 0.019) and low astigmatism (p < 0.001) was observed in the eyes of premature infants with ROP and moderate hyperopia in the group without ROP (p = 0.031) regardless of the treatment used [mean +1.33 spherical diopters (Dsfr.); SD ±3.09 for eyes with ROP vs. mean +2.42 Dsfr.; SD ±2.11 for eyes without ROP]. Birth weight (p = 0.01) and gestational age (p = 0.048) correlated with changes in spherical refraction in children with ROP. There were statistically significant differences in high myopia (p = 0.041), low myopia (p = 0.010) and low hyperopia (p = 0.014) in the group of premature infants treated for ROP depending on the form of therapy. Conclusions: There were statistically significant differences in high myopia (p = 0.041), low myopia (p = 0.010) and low hyperopia (p = 0.014) in the groups of premature infants with ROP and high myopia (p = 0.019) and low astigmatism (p < 0.001) in the groups treated with monotherapy or combined therapy. Birth weight (p = 0.01) and gestational age (p = 0.048) had a significant effect on refractive development in eyes with ROP.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".