Intraocular hemorrhage in patients misdiagnosed with central retinal artery occlusion treated with thrombolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The diagnosis of acute central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) is commonly delayed in emergency departments (ED) where ophthalmologists are rarely available for immediate consultation. Thrombolysis is sometimes given empirically for presumed CRAO without confirmation of the diagnosis with ocular funduscopic examination. Methods: We describe one case of severe intraocular hemorrhage following intravenous thrombolysis for a retinal detachment misdiagnosed as a CRAO, and two cases of worsening intraocular hemorrhage following intravenous thrombolysis for misdiagnosed CRAO, and review the literature. Results: We identified 4 cases in the literature were thrombolysis given for RAO resulted in ocular hemorrhage. We identified 12 additional cases where thrombolysis given for any indication resulted in intraocular hemorrhage. Discussion: Ocular hemorrhage is a rare but potentially devastating complication of thrombolysis in patients with underlying retinal disorders other than CRAO. Thrombolysis should never be given for acute vision loss without a funduscopic examination or ocular imaging confirming the diagnosis of CRAO.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".