“Integrity” Assessment Following Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We commend Mahmoudzadeh et al. 1 for assessing "integrity" following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair, rather than solely focusing on the primary anatomic reattachment rate, which has historically been prioritized in the literature.Achieving primary anatomic reattachment with the retina stretched and displaced is clearly not an ideal outcome.In their single-center series (194 RRD eyes), 12.9% of all eyes demonstrated retinal displacement, as evidenced by retinal vessel printings (RVPs) on fundus autofluorescence (FAF).Consistent with the literature, retinal displacement was more prevalent in eyes that underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).The reported rate of retinal displacement post-PPV (15.5%) in this work is relatively low compared to previous literature.A systematic review identified several studies from around the world, including Italy, Spain, Japan, and the United Kingdom, which used rigorous imaging protocols and reported retinal displacement rates of approximately 50% post-PPV, as evidenced by RVPs on FAF. 2 Additionally, in the multicenter ALIGN studies, we found that 51% of RRD eyes demonstrated retinal displacement on FAF post-PPV, 3 39% of eyes post-PPV with scleral buckle (SB), and 17% of eyes post-SB in fovea-off cases.4 Displacement rates are typically lower in fovea-on RRDs, and Mahmoudzadeh et al. included both fovea-on and fovea-off cases.However, this alone would not account for the low rates of displacement reported.Recent evidence from overlaying optical coherence tomography infrared images before the occurrence of RRD and after RRD repair has raised concerns about the sensitivity of FAF imaging in detecting retinal displacement.5 The high false-negative rate of FAF imaging underscores the need for additional imaging modalities.6 Indeed, this infrared homography case series demonstrated that all patients who underwent PPV for RRD had retinal displacement.5 We value the authors' work and suggest that the relatively low rate of retinal displacement post-PPV reported here and in other studies may have resulted from detection limitations associated with FAF imaging. 2 Factors such as media opacity, focus, and grading methodology can significantly impact the assessment of retinal displacement on FAF, potentially leading to false negatives.This complicates the assessment of differences in functional outcomes.We advocate for the development and validation of novel methods to improve the sensitivity and specificity of detecting retinal displacement, and for the standardization of methods for reporting its presence or absence.Only then can we adequately assess differences in functional outcomes between patients with and without retinal displacement and better understand how variations in surgical techniques influence 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".