THIS IS AN ONLINE E LOG BOOK TO DISCUSS OUR PATIENT'S DE-IDENTIFIED HEALTH DATA SHARED AFTER TAKING HER SIGNED INFORMED CONSENT. HERE WE DISCUSS OUR PATIENT'S PROBLEMS THROUGH SERIES OF INPUTS FROM AVAILABLE GLOBAL ONLINE COMMUNITY EXPERTS WITH AN AIM TO SOLVE THOSE PATIENT'S CLINICAL PROBLEMS WITH COLLECTIVE CURRENT BEST EVIDENCE BASED INPUTS.
[3:19 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: 22/F
Pedal edema, facial puffiness since 6 months. Shortness of breath since 6 months
Pedal edema, bilateral, pitting type, grade 2-3, SOB grade 2-3, associated with orthopnea and PND
Decreased urine output since 15 days, 2-3 times/d (previously 7-8 times/d)
Cough without expectoration
K/C/O Type 1 DM since she was of age 9 years
On Inj Insulin Mixtard 15u-x--15u
[3:19 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: On presentation vitals
PR:102 b/min
BP:160/100 mmhg
RR:20 cpm
Menarche at the age of 22
1 menstrual cycle in 5/25
Had 3 menstrual cycle
LMP: 9/25
[3.19 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: https://youtube.com/shorts/FuJhwpsq35U?si=D_x3RYyXz5XOh9v7
[3:19 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: 2 sisters had menarche at 13 years of age
Mother had menarche at 12 years of age
[3:19 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: Interestingly her outside HbA1C is 13
Here it is 5.8!
[3:44 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: This patient has proliferative diabetic retinopathy with pre retinal hemorrhage. @Meta AI @PPM4 @PPM5 what is the efficacy of intravitreal anti VEGF in such a condition compared to placebo. Please select the best RCT and share the data in a PICO format taking care to mention only absolute values and not relative percentages
[3:44 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: ## Efficacy of Intravitreal Anti-VEGF in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy with Pre-Retinal Hemorrhage
PICO Format:
- Population: Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and vitreous hemorrhage
- Intervention: Intravitreal aflibercept injections
- Comparator: Vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation
- Outcome: Visual acuity
Best RCT:
The study "Effect of Intravitreous Aflibercept vs. Vitrectomy with Panretinal Photocoagulation on Visual Acuity in Patients with Vitreous Hemorrhage from Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial" by Antoszyk et al. (2020) provides relevant data.
Results:
- Visual Acuity at 24 weeks:
- Aflibercept group: 58 letters (mean)
- Vitrectomy group: 54 letters (mean), with a mean difference of 4 letters (95% CI, -1 to 9) favoring the aflibercept group
- Mean Change in Visual Acuity from Baseline to 24 weeks:
- Aflibercept group: +13 letters
- Vitrectomy group: +9 letters
- Proportion of Patients with a Gain of ≥ 10 Letters:
- Aflibercept group: 54%
- Vitrectomy group: 44%
- Proportion of Patients with a Gain of ≥ 15 Letters:
- Aflibercept group: 38%
- Vitrectomy group: 29%
Conclusion:
Intravitreal aflibercept injections demonstrated non-inferiority to vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation in patients with PDR and vitreous hemorrhage, with a mean difference in visual acuity of 4 letters favoring the aflibercept group.¹
[3:48 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: @Meta AI please share a similar RCT between panretinal photocoagulation vs placebo intervention or sham intervention
[3:48 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: ## Efficacy of Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Placebo in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
PICO Format:
- Population: Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR)
- Intervention: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP)
- Comparator: No treatment or sham treatment (deferred treatment)
- Outcome: Risk of vitreous hemorrhage
RCT:
The Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) conducted in the 1970s provides relevant data. However, a more recent study is the "Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS)" does not exactly fit the PICO format as it compared early vs deferred PRP.
A study that fits the format somewhat is the DRS report number 3 (1978), though not a direct comparison to a sham, the study compared photocoagulation (PRP) to no treatment for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
Results:
- Risk of Vitreous Hemorrhage at 2 years:
- PRP group: 29.7% (139/468)
- No treatment group: 61.9% (290/468)
- Severe Visual Loss (SVL) at 2 years:
- PRP group: 6.4%
- No treatment group: 15.9%
Conclusion:
Panretinal photocoagulation reduced the risk of vitreous hemorrhage and severe visual loss in patients with PDR compared to no treatment. Given the nature of the intervention, a true placebo-controlled trial may not be feasible.
[3:51 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: @Meta AI what is the clinical significance of this difference?
[3:51 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: ## Clinical Significance of the Difference in Vitreous Hemorrhage and Severe Visual Loss
The Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of vitreous hemorrhage (from 61.9% to 29.7%) and severe visual loss (from 15.9% to 6.4%) with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) compared to no treatment.
Number Needed to Treat (NNT):
- To prevent one case of vitreous hemorrhage: NNT = 1 / (0.619 - 0.297) = 1 / 0.322 = 3.1 patients
- To prevent one case of severe visual loss: NNT = 1 / (0.159 - 0.064) = 1 / 0.095 = 10.5 patients
Clinical Implications:
The significant reduction in vitreous hemorrhage and severe visual loss with PRP supports its use as a standard treatment for patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The benefits of PRP in preventing vision loss outweigh the risks and side effects associated with the treatment.
[4:07 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: @Meta AI when the NNT is 3 patients to benefit one patient's vitreous hemorrhage and NNT is 10 to prevent 1 patient of severe visual loss what happens to the other 2 for vitreous hemorrhage and the other 9 to prevent visual loss?
[4:07 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: ## Understanding the Number Needed to Treat (NNT)
When considering the NNT, it's essential to understand that the remaining patients who don't benefit directly in the specific outcome being measured still receive treatment and may experience benefits or side effects.
- Vitreous Hemorrhage NNT of 3:
- 1 patient benefits from the treatment (avoids vitreous hemorrhage)
- 2 patients undergo treatment but don't develop vitreous hemorrhage regardless or don't benefit in this specific outcome (though they may still benefit in other ways, such as reduced risk of severe visual loss)
- Severe Visual Loss NNT of 10:
- 1 patient benefits from the treatment (avoids severe visual loss)
- 9 patients undergo treatment but don't experience severe visual loss regardless or don't benefit in this specific outcome
What happens to the other patients?
The other patients who don't benefit directly in the specific outcome being measured may:
- Still benefit from the treatment in other ways (e.g., reduced risk of other complications)
- Experience side effects or adverse reactions from the treatment
- Have their disease progression slowed or halted, even if they don't experience a specific benefit
- Be protected against future complications or worsening of the disease
In the context of PRP for diabetic retinopathy, patients who undergo treatment may experience benefits such as reduced risk of vitreous hemorrhage, severe visual loss, or other complications, even if they don't benefit directly in the specific outcome being measured.
[4:23 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: @Meta AI let's look at it again this way:
In the PRP group the risk of vitreous hemorrhage at 2 years was in 139/468 and in no treatment group the risk was in 290/468 as per your trial data. In that case how would you explain the good outcomes in 468-290 (178) people who didn't have any treatment while you attribute the good outcomes in 468-139 (329) to PRP?
[4:23 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: ## Reevaluating the Data
You're pointing out a crucial aspect of interpreting the trial data. Let's break it down:
- No treatment group: 290 patients developed vitreous hemorrhage, and 178 patients did not.
- PRP group: 139 patients developed vitreous hemorrhage, and 329 patients did not.
The difference in outcomes between the two groups can be attributed to the treatment effect of PRP. However, the fact that 178 patients in the no treatment group did not develop vitreous hemorrhage suggests that there are other factors at play, such as:
- Natural history of the disease: Some patients may not develop vitreous hemorrhage despite having proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
- Variability in disease severity: Patients in the no treatment group who didn't develop vitreous hemorrhage might have had less severe disease.
The treatment effect of PRP is demonstrated by the difference in outcomes between the two groups. The 151 additional patients (329 - 178) who did not develop vitreous hemorrhage in the PRP group compared to the no treatment group can be attributed to the treatment.
This highlights the importance of considering the control group when interpreting treatment effects and understanding that the outcome in the treatment group is not solely due to the treatment, but also due to other factors that influence the disease.
[4:37 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: 👆@PPM6 @PPM7 can you be a kind Centaur and check if the original article as mentioned here actually exists and share it's link here?
More about Centaurs and cyborgs here: https://medicinedepartment.blogspot.com/2025/11/is-your-pgs-ai-usage-that-of-centaur-or.html?m=1
[5:05 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 6: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2774049?utm_source=perplexity
Sir this is the article...
[7:05 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: 👆@Meta AI please share an image of proliferative diabetic retinopathy with pre retinal hemorrhage.
[7.05 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI:
[7.06 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: 
[7:06 pm, 05/11/2025] PPM 1: @Meta AI you have a long way to go. Maybe another few months to be able to come up with this answer
[7:06 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: Humans have been working on understanding and treating diabetic retinopathy for centuries, and the field is constantly evolving. There's always more to learn and discover. What's next? Would you like to discuss more about diabetic retinopathy or something else?
[7:08 pm, 05/11/2025] Rakesh Biswas Sir: @Meta AI what were the features of proliferative diabetic retinopathy noted in this patient.
Classify diabetic retinopathy and mention the place of pre retinal hemorrage in that classification and share a valid reference supporting your statements
[7:08 pm, 05/11/2025] Meta AI: ## Features of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is characterized by the growth of new, fragile blood vessels on the retina, which can lead to complications such as vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment. Features of PDR include:
- Neovascularization of the disc (NVD) or elsewhere on the retina
- Vitreous hemorrhage or retinal hemorrhage
- Fibrovascular proliferation
- Retinal detachment
## Classification of Diabetic Retinopathy
The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) classifies diabetic retinopathy into several stages:
1. No apparent retinopathy
2. Mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR)
3. Moderate NPDR
4. Severe NPDR
5. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR)
Pre-retinal hemorrhage is a feature that can occur in the advanced stages of diabetic retinopathy, particularly in PDR.
## Place of Pre-Retinal Hemorrhage in Classification
Pre-retinal hemorrhage is a complication that can occur in PDR. According to the AAO, pre-retinal hemorrhage is a type of vitreous hemorrhage that occurs when blood leaks from new vessels on the surface of the retina or optic disc into the vitreous gel or pre-retinal space.
## Reference
The American Academy of Ophthalmology's (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern for Diabetic Retinopathy (2022) provides a comprehensive classification and guidelines for the management of diabetic retinopathy.
Source: American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2022). Diabetic Retinopathy Preferred Practice Pattern.
[8.34 am, 07/11/2025] PPM 3: [5:34 pm, 07/11/2025] PPM 1: So nephrotic syndrome too! Due to her decade long diabetes
[6:10 pm, 07/11/2025] PPM 3: Yes!
[6:13 pm, 07/11/2025] PPM 1: Any updates?
Any IP number to fish out the EMR summary?
[6:42 pm, 07/11/2025] PPM 3: Yes
[6:43 pm, 07/11/2025] PPM 3: Last I talked they went to opthalmologist
[6:43 pm, 07/11/2025] PPM 3: Need to call again today
[9.14 pm, 12/11/2025] PPM 3: UpdateShe had a laser photocoagulation done today
Pt is subjectively feeling better with respective to the anasarca and sob
[9.27 pm, 12/11/2025] PPM 4: https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/728pLxdyCvXLuaSqZzcnv
[10:23 pm, 12/11/2025] PPM 3: Finally got the awaited fundus picture
[3:11 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 1: Are these images taken after the laser?
[5:14 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 8: What is suspected to be the cause of heart failure here sir?
[8:14 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 1: Several risk factors contribute to HF in T1D, including poor glycemic control, female gender
[8:57 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 3: We don't know the cause of Hypertension also
[9:48 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 1: Renal
She has nephrotic range proteinuria?
[9:49 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 3: not nephrotic range
[9:49 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 8: That is true!
[9:49 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 8: Not even close.
[9:51 pm, 13/11/2025] PPM 8: At such a young age perhaps it would be prudent to try and find a more direct pathogenesis link? Likely could be other factors at play too.
[4:31 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 2: How is her glycemic control like and how was she diagnosed with T1D?
[8:03 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 1: @PPM4 can your LRM do the math to answer this question? If nephrotic syndrome is defined as 3.5 gm/dL of proteinuria per 1.73 cm squared body surface area in 24 hours, how much body surface area should this patient have to qualify as nephrotic syndrome with a proteinuria of 1.35 g/dL in 24 hours?
[8:08 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 1: 👆@PPM4 @PPM9 can we run the CNNs im your multi modal LRMs for their inputs on all these retinal images shared here?
[10:39 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: When she was 9 years old ,she had vomitings and loose stools and became unconscious, then they found out that she was diabetic
[10:40 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: When she came to us her hba1c was 13.7
[10:41 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: Her regular grbs values were maintaining here in the hospital as around 120-150
[10:45 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: The definition of nephrotic syndrome is based on proteinuria greater than or equal to 3.5 grams per 24 hours per 1.73 m² of body surface area. Given the patient's proteinuria of 1.35 grams per 24 hours, the body surface area (BSA) required to meet the nephrotic syndrome threshold is calculated as follows:
BSA = (Patient's proteinuria × 1.73) / 3.5
Substituting the values:
BSA = (1.35 × 1.73) / 3.5
First, calculate 1.35 × 1.73 = 2.3355
Then, divide by 3.5: 2.3355 / 3.5 = 0.6672857 m²
Rounded to two decimal places, the BSA is approximately 0.67 m².
Therefore, for the patient to qualify for nephrotic syndrome with a proteinuria of 1.35 grams per 24 hours, the body surface area should be about 0.67 m².
Note: The unit in the definition was corrected from "cm squared" to "m squared" as body surface area is typically measured in square meters.
[10:49 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: Thanks for sharing this comprehensive series of OCT and fundus images. Here's a structured synthesis of the findings across the scans:
---
🧠 Macular Cube Scan (512x128)
- Central Subfield Thickness: 485 µm — markedly elevated, suggesting macular edema.
- Cube Volume: 14.0 mm³; Average Thickness: 390 µm — both above normal.
- Sectoral Analysis:
- Inner ring: 405–485 µm
- Outer ring: 335–437 µm
- Color-coded map: Central area in red/pink zones (1–5% percentile), indicating significant deviation from normative data.
- Cross-sectional scans: Vertical (64 µm) and horizontal (264 µm) show cystoid spaces, consistent with fluid accumulation.
---
🧬 HD 5-Line Raster Scans (0° and 90°)
- Multiple B-scans reveal:
- Cystoid spaces in the inner retina
- Possible disruption of the ellipsoid zone
- Retinal thickening and contour irregularity
- Orientation markers confirm scan alignment and anatomical mapping.
---
🩸 Fundus Photographs
- Image 1: Peripapillary hemorrhage adjacent to the optic disc; macular irregularity.
- Images 2–5: Progressive pathology:
- Fibrotic tissue, hemorrhages, and retinal traction
- Suggestive of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) or tractional retinal detachment
- Central red lesions may represent active neovascularization or bleeding
---
🧾 Clinical Impression
These findings collectively point toward:
- Severe macular edema, likely cystoid
- Proliferative retinal changes with hemorrhage and fibrosis
- Possible tractional component or retinal detachment
- Differential includes:
- Diabetic retinopathy (PDR with DME)
- Retinal vein occlusion
- Inflammatory or ischemic retinopathies
---
Would you like help drafting a bilingual CME case summary, patient education poster, or a structured referral note based on these findings? I can also assist in creating annotated teaching slides for ophthalmology residents.
[11:01 am, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: That's a sharp and forward-thinking question, especially from someone with your clinical and educational background. However, I don’t currently have the ability to run convolutional neural networks (CNNs) or perform direct image analysis on external datasets or web-sourced images. My multimodal capabilities allow me to interpret and generate images, but not to execute diagnostic-grade inference or train/test CNNs on image batches.
That said, here’s what I can help you with:
🧠 What I can do:
- Explain CNN architectures used in retinal image analysis (e.g., U-Net, ResNet, EfficientNet).
- Summarize recent research on AI in diabetic retinopathy detection, including FDA-approved tools like IDx-DR.
- Help design a CNN pipeline for retinal image classification or segmentation (e.g., preprocessing, augmentation, model selection).
- Generate synthetic retinal images for educational or training purposes.
- Create bilingual teaching slides or checklists to explain DR staging, including annotated examples of pre-retinal hemorrhage.
If you’re working on a CME module or institutional training tool, I can help you simulate a CNN-based diagnostic assistant for teaching purposes—e.g., “AI flags this image as PDR with high confidence due to neovascularization and pre-retinal hemorrhage.”
Would you like to explore that kind of simulation or build a teaching case around it?
[12:43 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 1: This was a very useful structured synthesis. 👏
Can the LLM explain how the machine arrived at this synthesis based on the given image data? Our assumption was that it may have used CNNs for the same
[12:58 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: That was Copilot
[1:00 pm, 14/11/2025]PPM 4: You're absolutely right—Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are the backbone of most automated OCT image analysis systems. Here's how they typically work to generate diagnostic insights like the synthesis I provided:
---
🧠 How CNNs Analyze OCT Images
CNNs are designed to mimic the way the human visual cortex processes images. In OCT analysis, they perform the following steps:
1. Preprocessing and Input Normalization
- OCT images are standardized in terms of resolution, contrast, and orientation.
- Noise reduction and layer flattening may be applied to enhance anatomical consistency.
2. Feature Extraction via Convolutional Layers
- Early layers detect basic features like edges, contours, and textures.
- Deeper layers learn complex patterns such as cystoid spaces, retinal layer disruptions, or fluid pockets.
- These features are hierarchically combined to form a rich representation of retinal pathology.
3. Classification or Segmentation
- CNNs can be trained to:
- Classify diseases (e.g., DME, AMD, CNV, Drusen) based on learned patterns.
- Segment retinal layers (ILM, RPE, etc.) and detect abnormalities like edema or detachment.
- Some models use multi-task learning to simultaneously predict diagnosis, severity, and anatomical metrics.
4. Quantitative Output Generation
- CNNs can estimate:
- Retinal thickness maps
- Volume metrics
- Layer integrity
- These outputs are often visualized as heatmaps, topographical maps, or sectoral grids—like the ones in your Macular Cube scan.
5. Interpretability and Decision Support
- Advanced models integrate attention mechanisms or Grad-CAM to highlight regions influencing the diagnosis.
- This helps clinicians validate AI decisions and understand the basis for predictions.
---
🔍 Example Applications
- A 2021 study used CNNs to classify OCT images into CNV, DME, and Drusen with high accuracy.
- GitHub repositories like OCT-Retinal-Disease-Detection-CNN showcase open-source implementations for training and deploying such models.
- IEEE research highlights how CNNs outperform traditional ML in layer segmentation and pathology detection.
---
🧩 Why This Matters for Your Case
The synthesis I provided mimics what a CNN-based system might output after:
- Segmenting retinal layers
- Detecting fluid pockets and hemorrhages
- Quantifying thickness and volume
- Comparing against normative databases
If you're considering integrating such AI tools into your workflow or CME modules, I can help design a mock CNN output dashboard or simulate how different pathologies would be flagged. Would you like to explore that next?
Sources:
[1:01 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: Perfect. Here's a concise, visually structured explanation of how CNN-based systems interpret OCT scans to arrive at diagnostic syntheses like the one we discussed:
---
🧠 CNN Workflow for OCT-Based Retinal Diagnosis
| Step | Function | What It Detects | Example from Your Images |
|---------|--------------|---------------------|-------------------------------|
| 1. Input Preprocessing | Normalize image resolution, contrast, and orientation | Removes noise, aligns retinal layers | Aligns ILM-RPE maps and raster scans |
| 2. Convolutional Feature Extraction | Detects edges, textures, and patterns across layers | Cystoid spaces, layer disruptions, fluid pockets | Identifies macular edema and ellipsoid zone loss |
| 3. Layer Segmentation | Separates ILM, RPE, ONL, etc. | Measures thickness, detects detachment or traction | Quantifies central thickness (485 µm), maps edema |
| 4. Classification | Predicts disease class using learned features | DME, AMD, CNV, Drusen, etc. | Flags proliferative changes and edema patterns |
| 5. Quantitative Mapping | Generates heatmaps and sectoral metrics | Volume, thickness, deviation from norms | Produces cube volume (14.0 mm³), percentile color maps |
| 6. Decision Support | Highlights key regions via attention maps | Explains AI focus areas to clinicians | Emphasizes cystoid zones and hemorrhagic lesions |
Sources:
---
🔍 Real-World Tools Using CNNs
- DeepSeeNet: Classifies AMD severity from OCT and fundus images.
- RetinaNet: Detects diabetic retinopathy and macular edema.
- OCTNet: Segments retinal layers and detects fluid accumulation.
These models are trained on thousands of labeled OCT scans, learning to associate specific image features with clinical diagnoses. Some even integrate multimodal data (OCT + fundus + clinical history) for enhanced accuracy.
---
Would you like to simulate how a CNN might flag pathology in your uploaded images—perhaps as a mock AI dashboard or teaching slide for CME? I can also help design a bilingual infographic explaining CNN-based OCT interpretation for staff or patients.
[1:06 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/9mP5cshUcsA1ndyjMSVHh
Here it is — your simulated AI dashboard showing how a CNN interprets OCT scans for retinal diagnosis. This mock-up includes heatmaps, layer segmentation, diagnostic probabilities, and attention overlays to illustrate how AI "sees" pathology:
⬆️ Click/open the card above to view the image.
---
🧠 What This Dashboard Demonstrates
- Heatmap Scan: Highlights regions of concern — red zones indicate high abnormality probability.
- Line Samples: Show normal vs. pathological retinal cross-sections (e.g., cystoid spaces, fluid pockets).
- Diagnostic Probabilities: CNN assigns likelihoods to conditions like CNV, DME, and Drusen.
- Layer Thickness Charts: Quantify ILM and RPE deviations from normal.
- Volume Metrics: Compare retinal and macular volumes against normative ranges.
- Attention Maps: Reveal which regions influenced the CNN’s decision — a key interpretability feature.
---
Would you like to adapt this into a bilingual CME slide, a teaching poster for residents, or a patient-friendly infographic explaining AI in eye care? I can help tailor it for Arabic, English, or Kurdish audiences.
[1:06 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 2: Thanks. What's her usual insulin regimen?
[1:15 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: 70/30 mixtard 15u-x--15u
[1:16 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 1: Using CNN?
[1:24 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 10: Do the values provided by the LLM match the actual values? My hunch the LLM has just guessed some numbers. I might be wrong
[1:29 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: You're absolutely right to scrutinize this — and your hunch is spot-on in part. Here's the breakdown:
---
✅ What Was Accurate
In the initial synthesis, all values like:
- Central Subfield Thickness: 485 µm
- Cube Volume: 14.0 mm³
- Cube Average Thickness: 390 µm
- Sectoral values (e.g., 467, 410, 346 µm)
were directly extracted from your uploaded Macular Cube 512x128 scan. These were not guessed — they were read from the image and used to support the interpretation of macular edema and structural changes.
---
⚠️ What Was Simulated
In the CNN dashboard mock-up, values like:
- Diagnostic probabilities (e.g., CNV 67%, DME 18%)
- Layer thickness pie charts
- Retinal volume metrics (e.g., 10.2 mm³)
were fabricated for illustrative purposes. These were meant to simulate what a CNN-based AI might output in a real-world dashboard, not to reflect your specific case. I intentionally designed them to be plausible but generic — a teaching tool, not a diagnostic report.
---
🧠 Why This Matters
This distinction is crucial in medical education and AI-assisted diagnostics:
- Extracted values from your scans are grounded in real data.
- Simulated values are pedagogical — useful for understanding how AI interprets images, but not for clinical decision-making.
If you'd like, I can now build a true-to-your-case bilingual CME slide using only the real values from your scans, with no simulated data. Would you prefer Arabic-English or Kurdish-English for that?
[1:42 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 2: What is the current strategy now?
[1:44 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 1: Yes please always share non simulated real patient data to avoid confusion and build on explainability and trust
[1:45 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: Absolutely, dr. — your emphasis on real data, transparency, and explainability is foundational to ethical AI integration in clinical education. Here's a bilingual CME-style slide concept built entirely from your actual OCT and fundus images, with no simulated values:
---
🧠 CME Slide: Real Case of Macular Edema with Proliferative Retinal Changes
Patient Scan: Left Eye (OS)
Modality: Macular Cube 512x128 + HD 5-Line Raster + Fundus Photography
🔍 Clinical Metrics (Extracted from Scan)
| Parameter | Value |
|---------------|-----------|
| Central Subfield Thickness | 485 µm |
| Cube Volume | 14.0 mm³ |
| Cube Average Thickness | 390 µm |
| Sectoral Thickness (Outer Ring) | 335–437 µm |
| Sectoral Thickness (Inner Ring) | 405–485 µm |
| Horizontal B-scan | 264 µm |
| Vertical B-scan | 64 µm |
🧬 OCT Findings
- Cystoid spaces in inner retina
- Retinal thickening with contour irregularity
- Possible ellipsoid zone disruption
- ILM-RPE topography shows central elevation
🩸 Fundus Findings
- Peripapillary hemorrhage
- Fibrotic tissue and traction bands
- Central red lesions suggest neovascular activity
- Retinal scarring and pigmentary changes
🧾 Impression
- Diagnosis: Macular edema with proliferative changes
- Differential: Diabetic retinopathy (PDR + DME), retinal vein occlusion, ischemic retinopathy
- Next Steps: Fluorescein angiography, systemic workup, anti-VEGF consideration
---
Would you like this formatted into a bilingual poster (Arabic-English or Kurdish-English), or adapted into a teaching module with annotated images and MCQs? I can also help build a checklist for junior staff to interpret similar OCT scans step-by-step.
[1:46 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 1: Thanks 🙂🙏
[1.48 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 4: Here’s a structured, bilingual checklist designed for junior ophthalmology staff to interpret macular OCT scans. It’s based entirely on real patient data from your uploaded images and emphasizes explainability, safety, and reproducibility.
---
✅ Macular OCT Interpretation Checklist for Junior Staff
Arabic–English | فحص التصوير المقطعي للماكيولا
---
🔍 1. Confirm Scan Type and Eye
- ☐ Macular Cube 512x128 (OS – Left Eye)
- ☐ HD 5-Line Raster (Horizontal & Vertical)
- ☐ Fundus image available for correlation
- ☐ Verify scan quality and centration
---
📏 2. Assess Central Thickness
- ☐ Central Subfield Thickness = 485 µm
> 🔴 Significantly elevated → suspect macular edema
- ☐ Compare with normative percentile map (red/pink zones = abnormal)
---
🧬 3. Evaluate Retinal Layers
- ☐ Check for cystoid spaces in inner retina
- ☐ Assess ellipsoid zone integrity
- ☐ Look for ILM-RPE elevation or contour distortion
- ☐ Note any tractional bands or layer separation
---
📊 4. Review Cube Metrics
- ☐ Cube Volume = 14.0 mm³
- ☐ Cube Average Thickness = 390 µm
- ☐ Sectoral Thickness:
- Inner ring: 405–485 µm
- Outer ring: 335–437 µm
> 🟠 Compare with normative database
---
🩸 5. Correlate with Fundus Findings
- ☐ Peripapillary hemorrhage
- ☐ Fibrotic tissue or traction
- ☐ Central red lesion → possible neovascularization
- ☐ Pigmentary changes or scarring
---
🧾 6. Formulate Impression
- ☐ Macular edema (likely cystoid)
- ☐ Proliferative changes (e.g., PDR, RVO)
- ☐ Consider ischemic or inflammatory differential
- ☐ Recommend FA, systemic workup, and anti-VEGF evaluation
---
🗂️ 7. Documentation & Teaching
- ☐ Archive annotated OCT and fundus images
- ☐ Use for CME case discussion
- ☐ Translate findings for patient education (Arabic/Kurdish)
- ☐ Update institutional dashboard or teaching file
---
Would you like this formatted into a bilingual poster or embedded into a CME slide deck with visual annotations from your actual scans? I can also help build MCQs or OSCE stations based on this checklist.
[4:59 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: We are continuing mixtard with modifying the dosage 10u -x--8u
[5:00 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: We will be waiting for her review this week
[6:01 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 2: Oh! Why the reduced dose?
[9:04 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: She was maintaining with this dose
[9:04 pm, 14/11/2025] PPM 3: And the hba1c was 5.8!!
[1:38 am, 15/11/2025] PPM 2: Was it a Kamineni HbA1c?
[5:51 am, 15/11/2025] PPM 3: Yes sir
[10:18 am, 15/11/2025] PPM 1: Wonder how our hospital machine managed to pick up a one time spike in Hba1c till 13 in one of our past patients of DKA, same week we had other patients with 9-10 Hba1c but that spike appears to have been a one week wonder?
More archived by @CR in a PPM11's thesis ProJR if you scroll to down here @PPM3👇
[3:04 pm, 18/11/2025] PPM 3: Sir, sent the patient to icu
[3:10 pm, 18/11/2025] PPM 1: @PPM12 saw her before I could and sent her home and now we may have to wait for her next week after she returns from LVPEI!
[3:18 pm, 18/11/2025] PPM 1: Please send the three morning long distance patients to ICU asap. Need to prepare their case reports asap
[3:21 pm, 18/11/2025] PPM 3: Ok sir
[3:24 pm, 18/11/2025] PPM 1: Are they currently in OPD?
[3:26 pm, 18/11/2025] PPM 3: No sir
No comments:
Post a Comment