Un nouveau cas de rétinopathie diabétique proliférante chez un patient atteint de dystrophie cônes-bâtonnets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La rétinopathie diabétique et les dystrophies rétiniennes sont rarement concomitantes en raison de l’effet protecteur des dystrophies rétiniennes contre la rétinopathie diabétique, et il existe peu de documentation sur la concomitance de la rétinopathie diabétique et des dystrophies rétiniennes. Ce rapport décrit un cas rare de rétinopathie diabétique proliférative chez un patient atteint de dystrophie cônes-bâtonnets. Cette coexistence n’est pas seulement unique dans sa présentation, elle souligne également le rôle important des tests auxiliaires, notamment l’autofluorescence du fond de l’œil, l’angiographie par fluorescéine, la tomographie par cohérence optique et l’électrorétinogramme plein champ. Les tests génétiques peuvent également faciliter le diagnostic. La pathophysiologie du développement concomitant de ces troubles est abordée. Ce cas souligne la nécessité d’approfondir les recherches sur la pathophysiologie de la rétinopathie diabétique, en particulier chez les patients qui ont une dystrophie rétinienne.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".