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
OBJECTIVE: To determine systemic and ocular risk factors for visual field progression in open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: In the Canadian Glaucoma Study, a multicenter prospective longitudinal study of 258 patients (131 men and 127 women; median age, 65.0 years), baseline systemic measures included assessment of peripheral vasospasm and markers for hematopathology, coagulopathy, and immunopathology. Patients were followed up at 4-month intervals with perimetry, optic disc imaging, and a standardized interventional protocol for intraocular pressure control. Univariate and proportional hazards models were used to identify factors that predicted progression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Visual field progression with standard automated perimetry. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5.3 years, with 167 patients (64.7%) completing 5 years or more and 67 patients (26.0%) completing 7 years or more. Abnormal baseline anticardiolipin antibody levels (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-9.31), higher baseline age (HR per year, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), female sex (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.09-3.46), and higher mean follow-up intraocular pressure (HR per 1 mm Hg, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.36) before progression were associated with progression. CONCLUSIONS: The Canadian Glaucoma Study identified 4 independent predictive factors for glaucomatous field progression. Application to Clinical Practice While confirming the importance of intraocular pressure in glaucoma progression, this study determined other risk factors that merit awareness.
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