SICKLE CELL RETINOPATHY LOST TO FOLLOW-UP STUDY
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 determine the outcomes of patients with sickle cell retinopathy who experienced at least one episode of being lost to follow-up (LTFU) compared with those who attended all appointments. METHODS: Adult patients with sickle cell retinopathy who visited Wills Eye Hospital Retina service (January 2012-December 2021) with >2 visits were reviewed for LTFU events, defined as failure to return for a follow-up appointment within 6 months of the scheduled date. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one eyes of 94 patients were included. Fifty-one patients (99 eyes) attended all appointments ("attended group"), whereas 43 patients (82 eyes), or 46%, had at least one LTFU event ("LTFU group"). The mean (SD) LTFU duration was 470 (329) days. In the LTFU group, mean (SD) VA was significantly worse at the final visit (logMAR 0.45 (0.63), Snellen 20/56) and at the post-LTFU visit (0.36 (0.59), 20/46) compared with the pre-LTFU visit (0.3 (0.47), 20/40, P = 0.001). In the attended group, mean (SD) VA was significantly better at the final visit (0.41 (0.63), 20/51) compared with the initial visit (0.52 (0.78), 20/66, P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Patients with sickle cell retinopathy with an LTFU event have worse visual outcomes compared with patients who attend all appointments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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