MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388801561

The Role of OCTA in Evaluating Diabetic Retinopathy Progression: A Meta-Analysis.

2024· review· en· W4388801561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Xi, Minfang Fan, Longhao Kuang, Feng Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic retinopathyMeta-analysisOphthalmologyOptical coherence tomography angiographyMEDLINEInternal medicineOptical coherence tomographyOptometryDiabetes mellitus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) substantially threatens ocular health, necessitating the accurate and prompt assessment of its onset and progression. Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is a valuable tool for evaluating periocular microvascular indicators, offering insights crucial for diagnosing and treating DR. Objective: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) by examining periocular microvascular indicators using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). The objective is to provide substantive evidence for the future diagnosis and treatment of DR. Methods: We analyzed the relevant research retrieved from PubMed and Web of Science until January 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully applied to select eligible studies. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with studies scoring 4 or less excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3 software and focused on key indicators, including peripapillary vascular length density (pVLD) and peripapillary vascular density (pVD). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and P values, with effect sizes determined via fixed-effect or random-effects models based on heterogeneity levels. Results: Six studies involving 839 DR-afflicted eyes and 3209 non-DR eyes were included after screening. All selected articles exhibited high reference value, with quality scores ranging from 5 to 8 points. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DR patients displayed significantly lower pVD and pVLD in the superficial (SCP) and deep capillary plexus (DCP) compared to non-DR patients (P < .05). These findings remained consistent across different effect models, reaffirming their validity. Conclusions: Patients with DR exhibit reduced levels of pVD and pVLD in the SCP and DCP compared to non-DR individuals. OCTA examination of periocular microvascular indicators emerges as an effective tool for assessing the onset and progression of DR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.067
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicRetinal Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→