Geographic atrophy in Korean patients with dry age-related macular degeneration: incidence, phenotypes, and progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the characteristics of geographic atrophy (GA) in Korean patients, including incidence, phenotypes, progression patterns, and factors associated with progression rates. Design Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. Participants Korean patients with intermediate and advanced (prevalent GA) dry AMD, followed for ≥3 years. Methods GA incidence was defined as the percentage of new GA emerging from the intermediate dry AMD group during the follow-up. Baseline phenotypes were evaluated in the prevalent GA group at the initial visit using fundus photography, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, and fundus autofluorescence (FAF). Progression patterns were assessed by growth rates (mm 2 /year and mm/year using square-root treansformation [SQRT]), and the centripetal growth direction (foveal involvement of extrafoveal lesions). Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with progression rates. Results In intermediate dry AMD group (395 eyes/241 patients), GA incidence was 6.8%, while wet conversion was 14.4%, during 60.5 ± 13.5 months. In prevalent GA group (70 eyes/46 patients), the mean lesion size was 7.2 ± 7.1 mm 2 (2.4 ± 1.3 mm [SQRT]), with bilateral involvement in 68.6%, banded/diffuse FAF patterns in 81.4%, extrafoveal and multifocal locations in 51.4% and 84.3%, and drusen and reticular pseudodrusen in 87.1% and 34.3%. The progression rate was 2.0 ± 1.3 mm 2 /year (0.3 ± 0.2 mm/year [SQRT]), with 69.4% exhibiting centripetal direction during 61.2 ± 14.5 months. Large lesion size, banded/diffuse FAF patterns, and extrafoveal locations were positively associated with progression rates ( p = 0.006, 0.007, and 0.008). Conclusions The 5-year incidence of GA in Korean patients with intermediate dry AMD was 6.8%, approximately half of the rate of wet conversion. The mean GA progression rate was 2.0 mm 2 /year (0.3 mm/year [SQRT]). Risk factors for fast progression were banded/diffuse FAF patterns, extrafoveal locations, and large lesion size.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".