SUPRACHOROIDAL SPACE IN RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT ASSESSED WITH OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To comprehensively investigate the suprachoroidal space (SCS) in the context of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) using swept-source optical coherence tomography. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of 90 consecutive patients with a primary RRD. Baseline swept-source optical coherence tomography scans were graded for the presence and thickness of SCS. Available scans of the fellow eye were graded for comparison. RESULTS: Suprachoroidal space was visible in 31.6% (24/76) of gradable RRD scans, with a mean thickest location measuring 67.0 µ m (SD 25.9), mean thinnest location of 33.8 µ m (SD 11.1), and mean average thickness of 50.0 µ m (SD 16.8). In addition, the SCS was detectable in 28.3% (13/46) of available fellow eye scans, with a mean thickest location measuring 47.0 µ m (SD 41.7), thinnest location of 25.2 µ m (SD 27.6), and mean average thickness of 35.8 µ m (SD 31.4). A statistically significant difference was found between RRD and fellow eyes in all measurements of SCS thickness. CONCLUSION: In RRD, the SCS serves as a crucial fluid reservoir influenced by dynamic shifts in intraocular hydrostatic and oncotic pressures. We found significant SCS engorgement in RRD eyes compared with fellow eyes, which may facilitate intra-SCS therapies such as suprachoroidal viscopexy or other pharmacologic interventions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it