Subfoveal choroidal thickness in retinitis pigmentosa cases [Retinitis pigmentoza olgularinda subfoveal koroid kalinligi]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the subfoveal choroidal thickness in retinitis pigmentosa cases and to assess its relationship with visual acuity. Materials and Methods: The central, temporal and nasal subfoveal choroidal thickness was measured with the EDI software of spectral domain optic coherence tomography (OCT) RTVue 100 5.1 (Optovue Inc. Fremont, Canada) Results: The choroidal thickness results of 48 cases diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa and 37 healthy individuals were compared. The central, temporal and nasal subfoveal choroidal thickness in retina pigmentosa patients were significantly thinner than the healthy controls. (p< 0.001, all). Visual aquities did not show any corelation with the choroidal thickness at nasal, temporal and macular area. Conclusion: The choroidal thickness results of 48 cases diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa and 37 healthy individuals were compared. The central, temporal and nasal subfoveal choroidal thickness in retinitis pigmentosa patients were significantly thinner than the healthy controls. (p< 0.001, all). The subfoveal choroidal thickness in three regions were observed no correlation between the visual acuity. © 2017 Gazi Eye Foundation. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".