MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1879067624 · doi:10.1111/cxo.12255

What percentage of patients presenting for routine eye examinations require referral for secondary care? A study of referrals from optometrists to ophthalmologists

2015· article· en· W1879067624 on OpenAlexaff
David Dobbelsteyn, Katherine C. McKee, Reece D. Bearnes, Sujani N Jayanetti, D. David Persaud, Alan F. Cruess

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Optometry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralAsymptomaticPediatricsGlaucomaEye careRetrospective cohort studyCohortDiabetic retinopathyOptometryOphthalmologyFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicineDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate the percentage of asymptomatic patients presenting for routine optometric eye examinations that have pathology or pathology-related risk factors warranting referral for ophthalmological consultation. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort case study and the inclusion criteria for participants included: (i) the patient presented for routine optometric eye care during a specified period of time; (ii) the patient was found to have pathology (or showed enough risk of pathology) resulting in referral to an ophthalmologist; and (iii) a referral report was received from the consulting ophthalmologist stating the diagnosis and the treatment plan. The data set was further reviewed to indicate presenting symptoms and patient age. Adult patients, ages 20 to 64 years, were reviewed separately; this age group is not covered by provincial health services for routine eye care in Nova Scotia. Files were obtained from two clinics through an electronic charting program. A database was created that included date of referral, clinical reasons for the referral, diagnosis and treatment plan. Clinical reasons for referral were extracted from the referral letters and reports and sorted into six disease categories: age-related macular degeneration, cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, retinopathy and 'other'. RESULTS: The overall referral rate for the combined data set was nine per cent for all ages; 2.4 per cent of the overall patients were asymptomatic. There was a similar number of asymptomatic patients referred in the adult (20 to 64 years) age group compared to all ages (2.5 per cent). CONCLUSION: A significant number of patients that present for routine eye examinations without any symptoms indicative of ocular disease are subsequently found to have a degree of pathology or risk thereof requiring referral for ophthalmological consultation. These referrals occur for adults under 64 years as much as for all patients of all ages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.316
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental OptometrySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207