Blindness Due to Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is one of the main causes of blindness in children in developed countries such as the United States, Canada and Western Europe, as well as in developing countries such as India, China, Eastern Europe and Latin America.Purpose: This literature review aims to analyze the incidence, risk factors, and therapeutic management of blindness due to retinopathy of prematurity. Method: Writing a literature review was carried out by searching scientific journals via the Pubmed and Google Scholar databases. The search was carried out using the keywords Blindness, Retinopathy Prematurity, , Risk Factor, Incidence, Neonates, Newborn, Clinical Study. Inclusion criteria include international published journals, journals published in the 2019-2023 period, as well as research journals related to studies on premature babies. Exclusion criteria included studies on test animals and premature infants with hydrocephalus or major congenital abnormalities. Results: 15 complete journal articles were taken which had been assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were used for review. Conclusion: ROP is one of the main causes of blindness in children in developed and developing countries. Low gestational age, low birth weight, and administration of additional oxygen therapy are risk factors for the development of ROP. Laser photocoagulation therapy and anti-VEGF agents (Ranibizumab, Conbercept) are frequently used clinically in the treatment of 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".