Quality of life amongst American vs. Canadian patients with retinal diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in American vs. Canadian populations suffering from retinal diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: A search of Medline was conducted according to a strategy that combined the MeSH heading 'retinal diseases' with either of 'quality of life' as a MeSH or 'utility' as a keyword. We included studies of American or Canadian patients using any of the National Eye Institute 25-item visual functioning questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), visual function index (VF-14), short form health survey (SF-36), or utility to assess HRQoL. A total of 22 studies with American patients and five with Canadian patients were found. There was no significant HRQoL difference found between the American and Canadian patients for any of the HRQoL instruments (P = 0.14-0.80); however, for all instruments mean HRQoL correlated positively with mean visual acuity in the better-seeing eye (P < 0.001). SUMMARY: On the basis of a review of the currently published literature, we were unable to detect significant differences in HRQoL between American and Canadian patients. Further research into the topic is necessary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".