An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study METHODS: Ophthalmologists (n = 14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails that they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated. RESULTS: Over a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals, with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access, pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals that were listed on PubMed vs those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, P = .002), were less likely to use "greetings" (76% vs 91%, P < .001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, P = .01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.

105° field of view non-contact handheld swept-source optical coherence tomography.

We demonstrate a handheld swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) system with a 400 kHz vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) light source, a non-contact approach, and an unprecedented single shot 105° field of view (FOV). We also implemented a spiral scanning pattern allowing real-time visualization with improved scanning efficiency. To the best of our knowledge, this is the widest FOV achieved in a portable non-contact OCT retinal imaging system to date. Improvements to the FOV may aid the evaluation of retinal diseases such as retinopathy of prematurity, where important vitreoretinal changes often occur in the peripheral retina.

International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity, Third Edition.

PURPOSE: The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity is a consensus statement that creates a standard nomenclature for classification of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). It was initially published in 1984, expanded in 1987, and revisited in 2005. This article presents a third revision, the International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity, Third Edition (ICROP3), which is now required because of challenges such as: (1) concerns about subjectivity in critical elements of disease classification; (2) innovations in ophthalmic imaging; (3) novel pharmacologic therapies (e.g., anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents) with unique regression and reactivation features after treatment compared with ablative therapies; and (4) recognition that patterns of ROP in some regions of the world do not fit neatly into the current classification system. DESIGN: Review of evidence-based literature, along with expert consensus opinion. PARTICIPANTS: International ROP expert committee assembled in March 2019 representing 17 countries and comprising 14 pediatric ophthalmologists and 20 retinal specialists, as well as 12 women and 22 men. METHODS: The committee was initially divided into 3 subcommittees-acute phase, regression or reactivation, and imaging-each of which used iterative videoconferences and an online message board to identify key challenges and approaches. Subsequently, the entire committee used iterative videoconferences, 2 in-person multiday meetings, and an online message board to develop consensus on classification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus statement. RESULTS: The ICROP3 retains current definitions such as zone (location of disease), stage (appearance of disease at the avascular-vascular junction), and circumferential extent of disease. Major updates in the ICROP3 include refined classification metrics (e.g., posterior zone II, notch, subcategorization of stage 5, and recognition that a continuous spectrum of vascular abnormality exists from normal to plus disease). Updates also include the definition of aggressive ROP to replace aggressive-posterior ROP because of increasing recognition that aggressive disease may occur in larger preterm infants and beyond the posterior retina, particularly in regions of the world with limited resources. ROP regression and reactivation are described in detail, with additional description of long-term sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: These principles may improve the quality and standardization of ROP care worldwide and may provide a foundation to improve research and clinical care.

Classification and comparison via neural networks.

We consider learning from comparison labels generated as follows: given two samples in a dataset, a labeler produces a label indicating their relative order. Such comparison labels scale quadratically with the dataset size; most importantly, in practice, they often exhibit lower variance compared to class labels. We propose a new neural network architecture based on siamese networks to incorporate both class and comparison labels in the same training pipeline, using Bradley-Terry and Thurstone loss functions. Our architecture leads to a significant improvement in predicting both class and comparison labels, increasing classification AUC by as much as 35% and comparison AUC by as much as 6% on several real-life datasets. We further show that, by incorporating comparisons, training from few samples becomes possible: a deep neural network of 5.9 million parameters trained on 80 images attains a 0.92 AUC when incorporating comparisons.

Ophthalmic imaging in children: current practice patterns and perceived barriers.

Pediatric ophthalmologists were surveyed to determine current practice patterns regarding ophthalmic imaging for children and to identify perceived barriers to the adoption of imaging technologies in their practices. Some form of imaging was available in the majority of practices (94%), but its use varied widely among different clinical scenarios. The two most frequently perceived barriers to performing imaging in children were cooperation and lack of sufficient data supporting ophthalmic imaging in clinical practice.