A Foundation for Change in Glaucoma Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There are times when a profession needs to be retrospective to move forward, to understand the completeness of their development, no matter how quick it may have seemed. We believe that such a time is now for the profession of optometry with regard to the spectrum of diseases known as glaucoma. For those of us involved at the academic level, both with respect to teaching and research, both basic and clinical, the last decade has been one of excitement and discovery. For the profession, the last 20 years have seen a dramatic expansion in our scope of practice. Many of us are involved in the management of patients with glaucoma; some even specialize almost exclusively in the diagnosis and medical treatment of the condition. What would the pioneers of yesteryear have made of such developments? Would the postwar educators with their models of refracting by numbers and the behavioral approach to patient care welcome such change? We would like to think so, just as we would like to think that worldwide optometry in the 21st century has the vision to embrace such change. Of course, there are foundations that need to be strong and unassailable for any profession to truly progress rather than simply believing in their own bluster and lobbying abilities. One essential foundation block is a history of, and contribution to, research. When it comes to glaucoma, we, as a profession, can be proud. There are researchers around the world from an optometric background who have been, and are currently, contributing at the very leading edge of glaucoma research. Our optometric research colleagues have been responsible for the development of standard of care perimetry; fast algorithms and SWAP algorithms; analytical methods for diagnosis and the recognition of disease progression; new drugs for the treatment of both OHT and the neuroprotection of the retinal ganglion cells; the development of animal models and cell culture models; discoveries in disease pathophysiology; methods of clinical electrophysiology and ocular blood flow; and imaging of the optic nerve and retina. Another important foundation block is that of education. We have faculty who specialize in glaucoma at our schools and universities, in hospitals, referral centers, the Veterans’ Administration, and private practice. We educate our professional students, residents, and educators; we educate family physicians, nurses, and ophthalmologists. We also work in collaboration with other professions for the care of our patients. At last year’s meeting of the American Academy of Optometry, another “glaucoma” milestone was reached when we had our first glaucoma diplomate in the disease section. Finally, we have our own international society. Five years ago, the Optometric Glaucoma Society (OGS) was founded with Murray Fingeret as its President and each of this special issue’s guest editors as founding members. The OGS was accepted as a full member of the Association of International Glaucoma Societies (AIGS), a global umbrella organization of international societies. Fourteen OD members, six non-OD OGS members, and four specialists with an optometry background were among the 49 delegates (24 of 49) invited to the first international consensus meeting of the AIGS in November 2003. The topic was “Structure and Function in the Diagnosis of Glaucoma.” As a profession, we have arrived and continue to make contributions. This special issue reflects that acceptance. We will not all choose to treat glaucoma just as we do not all care for patients who wear contact lenses, but we sincerely believe that the world’s patients with glaucoma, the second largest cause of global blindness, will be better cared for with optometric involvement. John G. Flanagan Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Murray Fingeret Hewlett, New York Thomas L. Lewis Philadelphia, Pennsylvania William H. Swanson New York, New York
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».