Low uptake of screening for retinopathy during pregnancy with pre-existing diabetes: A population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the frequency of eye screening during pregnancy for people with pre-existing diabetes, and to examine what factors were associated with screening. METHODS: Using linked real-world population-level data in Ontario, Canada, we identified all livebirths to people with pre-existing diabetes between April 2015 and March 2020, and determined the proportion who had an eye screening examination during pregnancy. The associations between screening uptake and a variety of sociodemographic, clinical and health service variables were examined. RESULTS: Of 6,708 pregnancies among people with pre-existing diabetes, 1,256 (18.7 %) had an eye screening examination within the first trimester and 3,045 (45.4 %) had eye screening at any time during pregnancy. The highest eye screening rates were seen among those with prior retinopathy treatment, with longer diabetes duration, and on the insulin pump program. People who received care from an endocrinologist in the first 180 days of pregnancy were far more likely to have an eye examination. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of eye screening in the first trimester among people with pre-existing diabetes was extremely low, despite the risk of worsening and sight-threatening retinopathy during pregnancy. Even by the end of pregnancy, fewer than one-half of patients had received eye screening.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".