MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400391605 · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.06.033

Morphologic Features of Regulated vs. Dysregulated Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography

2024· article· en· W4400391605 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aurora Pecaku, Sumana C. Naidu, Sueellen Demian, Miguel Cruz-Pimentel, Isabela Martins Melo, Rajeev H. Muni

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsKensington HealthUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyMedicineOphthalmologyRetinal pigment epitheliumProspective cohort studySubclinical infectionRetinalRetinal detachmentInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe varying morphological features of patients with RRD based on the extent of regulation of the subretinal space by the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) pump using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT). DESIGN: Prospective clinical cohort study. METHODS: Setting: St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada, from August 2020-August 2023. PARTICIPANTS: 120 consecutive eyes with primary RRD. Cohorts: Subclinical, non-progressive, localized RRD defined as regulated vs. acute, progressive, and extensive defined as dysregulated, assessed with SS-OCT. MAIN OUTCOME: Morphological features of regulated vs. dysregulated RRDs with SS-OCT. RESULTS: 19.2% (23/120) of RRDs were classified as regulated and 80.8% (97/120) were dysregulated. The mean age of patients with regulated RRDs was 37.1 years (±13.7 SD) vs. 62.6 years (±11.6SD) for patients with dysregulated RRDs (P < .001). The presence of outer retinal corrugations (ORCs) on OCT was observed in 4.3% (1/23) of regulated vs. 81.4% (79/97) of dysregulated RRDs (P < .001). CME was found in 41.6% (5/12) of regulated RRDs compared to 87.3% (83/95) of dysregulated RRDs (P < .001). ORC presence was an independent predictor of having a dysregulated RRD (P = .02, β = 6.6, 95% CI [1.3-33.2]) when controlling for age, sex, baseline VA, lens status, and RD extent. Among patients with regulated RRDs, 25.0% (3/12) were in Stage 2, 0% (0/16) in Stage 3A, 8.3% (1/12) in Stage 3B, 0% (0/16) in Stage 4, and 66.7% (8/12) in Stage 5. In patients with dysregulated RRDs, 14.7% (14/95) were in Stage 2, 15.7% (15/95) were in Stage 3A, 37.9% (36/95) in Stage 3B, 22.1% (21/95) in Stage 4, and 9.5% (9/95) in Stage 5 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant morphologic differences between regulated and dysregulated RRDs using SS-OCT. ORCs are present in almost all dysregulated cases but in a minority of regulated cases and they are an independent predictor of RPE-photoreceptor regulation status. Demographic and clinical features differentiate regulated and dysregulated RRD and understanding these differences has significant implications for optimal management and postoperative outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207