Risk factors for Poor Visual Outcome in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Patients with Mild Visual Loss (S26.004)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study risk factors related to progressive visual field loss in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial (IIHTT). BACKGROUND: The IIHTT is a multicenter randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT01003639). Analysis from the IIHTT has shown the use of acetazolamide (maximally tolerated up to 4 g/day) with a low-sodium weight-reduction diet compared with diet alone resulted in modest improvement in visual field function in IIH patients with mild visual loss. DESIGN/METHODS: Participants (n=165) were enrolled from 2010 to 2012 and followed for 6 months. All participants met the modified Dandy criteria and had a perimetric mean deviation between -2 to -7 dB. The mean age was 29 years and all but four participants were women. 151 subjects were followed for more than one month and were used for analysis. Seven patients (5 women, 2 men; 6 placebo, 1 acetazolamide) had progressive visual field loss that met IIHTT criteria for treatment failure. RESULTS: Patients with higher grade papilledema but lower ETDRS visual acuity in the study eye were more likely to have progressive field loss. The odds ratio (OR) for patients with grades III-V grade papilledema vs. those of grades I-II was 8.6 (95[percnt]CI:1.7,infinite;p-value=0.025). A one unit increase in the number of ETDRS letters correct at baseline was associated with a decrease in the odds of progressive field loss by a factor of 0.86 (CI:0.77,0.96:p=0.005). Compared to female patients, the OR for male patients was 26.3 (CI:1.6,5000;p-value=0.0054). Subjects with progressive field loss had over 2½ times as many transient visual obscurations monthly; the difference was not significance (p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Male patients, those with high grade papilledema and those with decreased visual acuity at baseline were more likely to experience progressive field loss. These patients should be monitored closely and provided with appropriate treatment of their IIH. Study Supported by: NEI-1U10EY017281-01A1
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".