Eye-Related Adverse Events After I-131 Radioiodine Therapy: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although I-131 is relatively safe, there is limited focus on probable eye-related side effects after radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy. Thus, we aimed to provide evidence for the adverse outcomes of I-131, exclusively in patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: A systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was designed to examine the ocular complications of RAI therapy. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until October 2023 with specific thyroid neoplasms, ophthalmology and iodine terms. After thorough screening and review, relevant data were extracted. RESULTS: The database search yielded 3434 articles, which resulted in the final 28 eligible studies. These studies investigated ophthalmic symptoms following RAI therapy, classifying them as obstructive diseases (for example, nasolacrimal duct obstruction; median incidence rate: 6.8%), inflammatory symptoms (median incidence rate: 13%), and cataracts (median incidence rate: 2.5 and 5%). The most common time interval between RAI therapy and the onset of symptoms was within the first 12 months and then declined in the preceding years. A strong positive correlation was observed between higher I-131 doses of more than 100 to 150 mCi (3.7-5.55 GBq) and the risk of symptom development. Ages older than 45 also showed a significant association with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. CONCLUSION: The risk of ophthalmic complications is associated with various factors, including the administration of high I-131 doses, age of more than 45 years, and time to event within the first 12 months. Considering these conditions may help enhance patient care and prevent adverse outcomes that may limit patients' quality of life.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".