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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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".