RETINAL VASCULARISATION FROM A NEW ANGLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Retinal temporal vessel angles (TVA) could function as a clinical marker to reflect the structural and functional integrity of the macular region. We aimed to systematically search and appraise all literature investigating the association between temporal vessel angles (TVA) and familial exudative vitreoretinopathy (FEVR). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We identified articles examining the association between TVA and FEVR by systematically searching PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and SCOPUS, on January 15, 2024. Additional studies were located through hand searching and content area expert contributions. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We identified 767 papers in the initial search. After screening 333 papers, three papers were included in the review. In all three studies, the FEVR group had a significantly smaller temporal retinal vessel angle compared to healthy full-term infants or infants with retinopathy of prematurity. Narrower temporal vessel angles have been found to be associated with the presence and progression of FEVR as compared to normal controls. No consensus about the normal threshold angle has been reached. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that TVA measurement may serve as a clinical biomarker for the progression of FEVR. Thus, this correlation underscores the importance of TVA as a diagnostic and prognostic tool, potentially facilitating earlier intervention and more tailored treatment strategies. A standardized method of measuring TVA will enable a better understanding of its association with FEVR severity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".