The risk of development and progression of diabetic retinopathy in a group of ethnically diverse pregnant women with diabetes attending three regional Diabetic Eye Screening Programs in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Currently, all pregnant women with diabetes are asked to attend screening at least twice during pregnancy, even if no retinopathy is detected in early pregnancy. We hypothesise that for women with no diabetic retinopathy in early pregnancy, the frequency of retinal screening may be safely reduced. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data for 4718 pregnant women attending one of three UK Diabetic Eye Screening (DES) Programmes between July 2011 and October 2019 was extracted. The women's UK DES grades at 13 weeks gestation (early pregnancy) and 28 weeks gestation (late pregnancy) were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline data. Ordered logistic regression was used to control for covariates, such as age, ethnicity, diabetes duration, and diabetes type. RESULTS: Of the women with grades recorded for both early and late pregnancy, a total of 3085 (65.39%) women had no retinopathy in early pregnancy, and 2306 (74.7%) of these women did not develop any retinopathy by 28 weeks. The number of women without retinopathy in early pregnancy who developed referable retinopathy was 14 (0.45%), none of whom required treatment. Diabetic Retinopathy in early pregnancy remained a significant predictor of DES grade in late pregnancy when covariates of Age, Ethnicity, and Diabetes Type were controlled for (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this study has demonstrated that the burden of managing diabetes for pregnant mothers may be safely reduced by limiting the number of diabetic eye screening appointments in women who have no retinal changes in early pregnancy. Screening of women with retinopathy in early pregnancy should continue in line with current UK guidance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".