Symmetry of Disease in Retinopathy of Prematurity in the Postnatal Growth and Retinopathy of Prematurity (G-ROP) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".