Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Deferoxamine (DFO) is a chelating agent used widely for the treatment of transfusional hemochromatosis. DFO-related ocular toxicity has been previously reported several times, and many institutions have adopted an ophthalmic screening protocol for patients treated with DFO despite little information regarding the rate of ocular toxicity. Our study aimed to determine the incidence of DFO toxicity at a major pediatric hospital that uses regular ophthalmic screening for all DFO-treated patients. METHODS: A retrospective case series of all patients treated with DFO for transfusional hemochromatosis at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) between 1995 and 2005 inclusive. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients received regular DFO treatment for transfusional hemochromatosis related to long-term hypertransfusion. A total of 421 ophthalmic screening examinations were performed (average, 5.0 examinations per patient). DFO-related ocular toxicity was found only in one patient (1.2%). This patient had central blurriness and retinal pigmentary changes shown by examination and decreased central responses shown by electroretinography, but these changes were all found to be completely reversible after a change from intravenous to subcutaneous therapy at a reduced dose. CONCLUSIONS: In this large pediatric center, DFO-related ocular toxicity has been a rare and mild finding. Regular ophthalmic screening should be carried out for patients receiving high-dose subcutaneous or intravenous therapy, because early detection of retinal toxicity may lead to optimization of the DFO dose and thus prevention of long-term visual sequelae.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it