Glaucoma management in Sweden – results from a nationwide survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the results from a nationwide survey on glaucoma management in Sweden, performed as a part of an Open Angle Glaucoma project conducted by the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment 2004-2008. METHODS: In 2005, a survey was distributed to all providers of glaucoma care in Sweden: public eye departments, public outpatient departments and private practices. The questionnaire included questions on number of examined patients, types of examinations during one defined week, internal organization and access to diagnostic equipment. The questionnaire was endorsed by the Swedish Ophthalmological Society. Reminders were sent out to nonresponders. RESULTS: Response rate was high; 97% (33/34) of eye departments, 85% (39/46) of outpatient departments and 55% (69/125) of private practices. Out of 29 282 visits in ophthalmic care during the study week, 7737 (26%) were related to glaucoma. Diagnostic equipment was generally available; all public eye facilities and 92% of private practices had at least one computerized perimeter, while equipment for fundus photography/imaging was available at 100% of eye departments, 82% of outpatient departments and 62% of private practices. The number of visual field tests and fundus images was rather low. Survey results indicate that patients on the average underwent bilateral field testing every 2nd year and fundus imaging every 8th year. CONCLUSION: Glaucoma care generated about a quarter of all patient visits in Swedish ophthalmic care. Access to diagnostic facilities was good. To meet modern standards of glaucoma care, glaucoma damage must be measured and followed more closely than at the time of the survey.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".