Predictors of the presence of cystoid macular edema after idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine the predictors of the presence of cystoid macular edema (CME) after idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery. Material and methods: A two-center retrospective cohort study.A review of consecutive patients with ERM who underwent pars plana vitrectomy with ERM peeling.The study involved an analysis of a set of factors at baseline and during one-year follow-up, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, LogMAR) and optical coherence tomography markers, surgical factors (posterior capsulotomy, steroid use, type of tamponade, ILM peeling).The statistical model utilized uni-and multivariate logistic regression analyses with final CME presence as a binary outcome.Results: One-hundred twenty eight eyes (125 patients) were enrolled in the study.A significant improvement in BCVA was noted in both groups, but the improvement rate was faster in the non-CME group.Univariate analysis showed that young age (OR 0.9, CI: 0.84-0.96,p = 0.02), air tamponade (OR 8.62, CI
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".