Vitreoretinopathy-Associated Pediatric Retinal Detachment Treatment Outcomes

Purpose: To determine the treatment patterns and outcomes of pediatric retinal detachments (RDs) associated with hereditary vitreoretinopathies. Design: Retrospective cohort analysis using IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) database. Participants: Patients < 18 years old with a rhegmatogenous RD and a systemic disorder associated with vitreoretinal degeneration (e.g., Stickler syndrome) or other malformation of the vitreous from 2013-2019. Methods: Cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions (ICD-9, ICD-10) diagnostic codes from the IRIS® Registry cohort. Other hereditary vitreoretinopathies that are not encoded by specific ICD code(s) were captured by text search. Nonspecific vitreous abnormality ICD codes were also included. Exclusion criteria included traumatic retinal detachments using ICD codes for ocular trauma and serous or exudative retinal detachment. Surgical procedures were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for repair of retinal detachment. Baseline demographic information collected included age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region of the provider location, and health insurance status. Main Outcome Measures: Main outcomes measured in this study were average time to first surgery, number of eyes presenting with bilateral detachments, and choice of initial surgical procedure. Results: A total of 2115 eyes of 1722 patients were identified (mean age, 10.4 years; 58% male). The median time to first surgery was 7 days (interquartile range, 40 days). One thousand four hundred seven eyes of 1134 patients had ≥ 1 year of follow-up, with 506 eyes (36%) developing a fellow eye RD. Thirty-three percent of patients presenting with bilateral detachments, and 349 eyes had initial RD surgery within 1 year of the index date documented by CPT code. Fellow eye detachment occurred a mean of 32 days after initial presentation. The mean number of surgeries per eye within 1 year was 1.68. Best-corrected visual acuity did not improve from a baseline 20/54 to 20/62. The initial procedure was most commonly complex RD repair (n = 176), followed by scleral buckle (n = 102), pars plana vitrectomy (n = 89), laser (n = 59), cryotherapy (n = 5), and pneumatic retinopexy (n = 5). There were 51 new diagnoses of glaucoma and 37 new diagnoses of aphakia within 1 year after the surgical procedure. Conclusions: IRIS Registry data provide insight into rare pediatric vitreoretinopathy-associated RDs, which have a high rate of reoperation and fellow eye involvement. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article

Generative Artificial Intelligence Through ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models in Ophthalmology

The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) driving generative artificial intelligence applications heralds the potential of opportunities in health care. We conducted a review up to April 2023 on Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus using the following terms: “large language models,” “generative artificial intelligence,” “ophthalmology,” “ChatGPT,” and “eye,” based on relevance to this review. From a clinical viewpoint specific to ophthalmologists, we explore from the different stakeholders’ perspectives—including patients, physicians, and policymakers—the potential LLM applications in education, research, and clinical domains specific to ophthalmology. We also highlight the foreseeable challenges of LLM implementation into clinical practice, including the concerns of accuracy, interpretability, perpetuating bias, and data security. As LLMs continue to mature, it is essential for stakeholders to jointly establish standards for best practices to safeguard patient safety. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field