Temporal and Seasonal Trends in Acanthamoeba Keratitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and risk factors of Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) over an 8-year period in a Canadian tertiary care setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 41 patients (42 eyes), who were diagnosed as having AK between January 1999 and December 2006 in the cornea clinic at the Toronto Western Hospital. The incidence and risk factors of AK were evaluated. RESULTS: The number of cases per year increased from between 0 and 4 in the first 5 years to 9, 14, and 8 in the last 3 years. The annual increasing trend was statistically significant (P = 0.04). The month of onset of disease symptoms showed a trend toward onset in summer and fall and was statistically significant for the difference between January and August (P = 0.0094). The season of onset of disease symptoms showed a trend toward summer onset, and the difference between winter and summer was statistically significant (P = 0.02). 92.9% of cases occurred in contact lens wearers, particularly in soft contact lens wearers (82.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of AK in Canada may be increasing since 2004. There is a seasonal trend toward disease onset in the warmer months.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".