MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976841083 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13100272

Symmetry of Disease in Retinopathy of Prematurity in the Postnatal Growth and Retinopathy of Prematurity (G-ROP) Study

2020· other· en· W6976841083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinopathy of prematurityCohortDiseaseRetinopathyEye diseaseRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the symmetry of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) between fellow eyes in a broad-risk cohort. A retrospective cohort study, the Postnatal Growth and ROP (G-ROP) Study, of 7483 infants undergoing ROP examinations conducted at 29 hospitals in the United States and Canada from 2006 to 2012. The main outcomes were the symmetry for the highest stage and the most severe type (1, 2, not 1 or 2, no ROP) of ROP and disease course of the fellow eye when only one eye developed type 1. 93% of infants had eyes symmetric for the highest stage and 94% for type. Among 459 infants who developed type 1, 379 (82.6%) did so in both eyes simultaneously and were treated bilaterally; 44 (10%) were treated for type 1 in one eye and type 2 in the fellow eye; and 36 (8%) were treated unilaterally initially, of which 6 fellow eyes developed type 1 and were treated (4 within 2 weeks, all within 4 weeks); 5 developed type 2 and regressed; and 25 developed ROP less than type 1 or 2, which was treated in 13 cases and regressed spontaneously in 12 cases. ROP was highly symmetric between eyes with respect to the presence and severity of disease in a large, broad-risk cohort representative of infants undergoing ROP screening. When type 1 develops in one eye and type 2 in the fellow eye, the risk of progression to type 1 in the fellow eye appears very low if it has not occurred within 4 weeks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207