MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014817992 · doi:10.1586/17469899.2013.817720

Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: untreatable at present?

2013· article· en· W2014817992 on OpenAlexaff
Devin D. Mackay, Edward J. Atkins, Nancy J. Newman, Valérie Biousse

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Ophthalmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnterior ischemic optic neuropathyOptic neuropathyOptic nerveOphthalmologyClinical trialRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studySurgeryIschemic optic neuropathyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) is the most common acute optic neuropathy in patients aged over 50 years and results from ischemic damage to the anterior optic nerve. Proposed treatments for NAION presumably target thrombosis, blood vessels or disc edema or may have a neuroprotective effect. However, no controlled prospective clinical trials have shown benefit for any medical or surgical treatments. Most of the literature on the treatment of NAION consists of retrospective or prospective case series and case reports. IONDT is the only large multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial performed for NAION and it found no benefit for surgical intervention. There is a debate over the utility of steroids, both oral and intravitreal, and over the use of intravitreal injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor agents. Similarly, therapies aimed at secondary prevention of fellow eye involvement in NAION remain of unproven benefit.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of OphthalmologySame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207