Effects of retinopathy of prematurity and preterm birth on childhood visual outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical relevance Late-childhood visual outcomes in children born preterm, with or without retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), are not well understood, limiting the opportunities for preventative and early interventions.Background This observational study investigated how ROP and preterm birth may affect late-childhood visual outcomes.Methods Children born at gestational age <30 weeks or birth weight <1250 grams and screened for ROP, and at full-term (gestational age ≥ 37 weeks) were assessed at 8–10 years corrected age. The primary outcome, favourable overall visual outcome (good presenting vision in the better eye [≤0.30 logMAR], no strabismus, passing stereoacuity, not requiring spectacles), and other outcomes were compared using generalised linear regression models.Results The study included 111 children (ROP n = 47 [stages: 1 = 23, 2 = 19, 3 = 4, 4 or worse = 1; 3 laser photocoagulation treatment]; preterm birth and no ROP n = 17; and term n = 37), aged 8.9 (interquartile range 8.6, 9.4) years. There were no significant differences in favourable overall visual outcome (composite measure) between the groups (ROP, 21/44 (48%); preterm birth and no ROP, 8/14 (57%); term, 20/32 (63%); p = 0.43). Children with ROP had shorter axial length (p = 0.01) and steeper corneal curvature (p = 0.001) than the term group; both preterm groups had thicker central retinas than the term group (p < 0.0001). The term group had better visuomotor integration scores than the ROP group (p = 0.01). No group differences in global motion or electrophysiology were observed.Conclusion In this small observational cohort, children with mainly mild ROP had similar visual outcomes to children born preterm without ROP and at full-term but remain at risk of reduced visuomotor integration in late childhood. Children born preterm are at risk of ocular structural changes, but further investigation is required to understand the long-term implications.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".