Oral Fluoroquinolones and Risk of Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of developing glaucoma in patients taking systemic fluoroquinolones. METHODS: A case-control study was carried out among a cohort of subjects who had visited an ophthalmologist in the Province of British Columbia, Canada from 2000 to 2007. Cases were identified as those newly diagnosed with glaucoma (ICD-9 360). For each case, 5 controls were selected and matched to the cases by age and calendar time. Crude and adjusted rate ratios (RRs) for current, recent, past, and distant use of fluoroquinolones were calculated. RESULTS: From the cohort of 989,591 subjects, 178,264 subjects were diagnosed with glaucoma and 891,320 were corresponding controls. The 2 groups had same average age of 65 and comparable systemic comorbidities including hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diabetes. There was no statistically significant association between the use of systemic fluoroquinolones and the development of glaucoma for current use [RR=1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.07)], recent use [RR=1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08)], or past use [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00)]. Distant use of systemic fluoroquinolones had a small statistically significant increased risk of developing glaucoma [RR=1.12 (95% CI, 1.09-1.14)]. CONCLUSIONS: There was no detected increased association of the development of glaucoma with current, recent, or past use of systemic fluoroquinolone but a minimal statistically significant increased risk was associated with distant use. Future studies should further examine a potential delayed response with fluoroquinolones and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".