IMAGING PREDICTORS OF FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES AFTER RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the microstructural optical coherence tomography and fundus autofluorescence imaging predictors of visual acuity, metamorphopsia, and aniseikonia following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients with primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment who underwent repair. Best-corrected visual acuity, metamorphopsia, and aniseikonia were formally tested at 3 months postoperatively. Metamorphopsia and aniseikonia were quantitatively assessed with M-CHARTS and the New Aniseikonia Test, respectively. High-resolution spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and fundus autofluorescence images were obtained at 3 months postoperatively. Images were assessed for discontinuity of the outer retinal bands on optical coherence tomography and retinal displacement detected by retinal vessel printings on fundus autofluorescence by two masked graders with disagreements adjudicated by a third senior masked grader. Multiple linear regression models were used to determine the predictors of postoperative visual acuity, metamorphopsia, and aniseikonia. RESULTS: Six hundred fourteen eyes of 614 patients were included in this study. Regression analysis indicated that significant early postoperative (at 3 months) imaging predictors of visual acuity were discontinuity of the external limiting membrane (P = 0.001) and the presence of retinal vessel printings on fundus autofluorescence (P = 0.033). Discontinuity of interdigitation zone was a significant predictor of metamorphopsia [horizontal metamorphopsia (P =0.004); vertical metamorphopsia (P = 0.056); average of horizontal metamorphopsia + vertical metamorphopsia (P = 0.008)], and presence of retinal vessel printings was a significant predictor of aniseikonia (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Discontinuity of the external limiting membrane and retinal displacement were significant predictors of postoperative visual acuity following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. Discontinuity of the interdigitation zone and retinal displacement were significant predictors of metamorphopsia and aniseikonia, respectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".