Twenty-four hour efficacy with the dorzolamide/timolol-fixed combination compared with the brimonidine/timolol-fixed combination in primary open-angle glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AimThe aim of this study is to compare the 24-hour efficacy of dorzolamide/timolol-fixed combination (DTFC) and brimonidine/ timolol-fixed combination (BTFC) in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).Methods One eye each of 77 POAG patients was included in this prospective, observer-masked, crossover comparison.Following a 2-month timolol run-in period, patients had three intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements at 1000, 1200 and 1400 h while on timolol treatment.Patients showing at least a 20% IOP reduction on timolol were randomised to 3 months of therapy with DTFC or BTFC, and then were crossed over to the opposite therapy.Results Sixty POAG patients completed the study.The mean 24-hour IOP was significantly reduced with both the fixed combinations compared with the timolol-treated diurnal IOP (Po0.001).When the two fixed combinations were compared directly, DTFC demonstrated a lower mean 24-hour IOP level as compared with BTFC (mean difference: À0.7 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): (À1.0,À0.3), Po0.001).At two individual time points, DTFC significantly reduced IOP more than BTFC: at 1800 h (À1.0 mm Hg, 95% CI (À1.6,À0.5),P ¼ 0.001) and at 0200 (À0.9 mm Hg, 95% CI: (À1.4,À0.5),P ¼ 0.001).No significant difference existed for the other time points.Conclusion Both the fixed combinations significantly reduce 24-hour IOP in POAG.DTFC provided significantly better 24-hour efficacy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".