CLINICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH RECURRENT AND FELLOW EYE RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify clinical and surgical risk factors associated with recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in the index eye and RRD in the fellow eye. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of adult patients who underwent RRD repair at two tertiary care centers over six years. RESULTS: Among 794 patients with primary RRD, recurrence occurred in 20.5%, and RRD in the fellow eye was observed in 5.2%. Postoperative visual acuity significantly improved at one year (95% CI -0.44 to 0.30; P < 0.001). Higher recurrence rates were found in patients with prolonged symptom duration ( P = 0.005), preoperative proliferative vitreoretinopathy ( P = 0.006), and worse initial visual acuity ( P < 0.001). Recurrences were most frequent within the first 90 days postoperatively, while fellow eye RRD primarily occurred after 1 year. Pneumatic retinopexy (SE 0.37; 95% CI 1.07-4.64, P = 0.03) and the extent of detachment (SE 0.04; 95% CI 1.0-1.2; P = 0.005) were significant predictors of recurrence in multivariate analyses. Age (SE 0.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; P = 0.01) and male sex (SE 0.38; 95% CI 1.66-7.47; P = 0.001) were significant predictors for fellow eye RRD. CONCLUSION: The study highlights pneumatic retinopexy and detachment extent as significant predictors of RRD recurrence. It also identifies older age and male sex as risk factors for RRD in the fellow eye. Our findings emphasize the importance of risk stratification and recommend close monitoring during the first 90 days and beyond the one-year postoperative period.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".