Retinal thickness in diabetic and non-diabetic patients using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the average retinal thickness with and without diabetes using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography (SD-OCT). Known diabetic and non-diabetic respondents from Diabetic Eye Clinic & General OPD having no clinical signs of diabetic retinopathy on fundus examination were selected in this study. All the participants gave informed written informed consent. A total of 80 patients (n=156 eyes) were recruited in this study. Average central thickness was 249 µm and 246 µm in diabetic and non-diabetic patients respectively. On quadrant wise evaluation, retinal thickness in diabetic and non-diabetic (Healthy Eye) were: Nasal =310 µm and 324 µm), Temporal =291 µm and 304 µm, Superior =297 µm and 316µm, and Inferior= 292 µm and 314 µm). Retinal thicknesses were greater at nasal and lesser at temporal areas.In conclusion retinal thickness measured in diabetic patients was found to be less in non-diabetic patients. Age and gender were other related demographic factors that influenced macular thickness measurements.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".