MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991439648 · doi:10.1111/aos.12298

Ocular perfusion pressure in glaucoma

2013· review· en· W1991439648 on OpenAlexaff
Vital Paulino Costa, Alon Harris, Douglas R. Anderson, R. Stodtmeister, Fernanda Cremasco, Hélène Kergoat, John V. Lovasik, Oliver Zeitz, Ines Lanzl, Konstantin Gugleta, Leopold Schmetterer

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucomaIntraocular pressureMedicinePerfusionOptic nerveOphthalmologyOcular hypertensionBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article discusses the relationship between ocular perfusion pressure and glaucoma, including its definition, factors that influence its calculation and epidemiological studies investigating the influence of ocular perfusion pressure on the prevalence, incidence and progression of glaucoma. We also list the possible mechanisms behind this association, and discuss whether it is secondary to changes in intraocular pressure, blood pressure or both. Finally, we describe the circadian variation of ocular perfusion pressure and the effects of systemic and topical medications on it. We believe that the balance between IOP and BP, influenced by the autoregulatory capacity of the eye, is part of what determines whether an individual will develop optic nerve damage. However, prospective, longitudinal studies are needed to better define the role of ocular perfusion pressure in the development and progression of glaucoma.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations253
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207