Effect of latanoprost as adjunctive therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Latanoprost may be a useful adjunct in some patients receiving maximum tolerated medical therapy. We report our clinical experience with latanoprost when added to one or two other glaucoma medications. METHODS: Review of the charts of 53 patients with open-angle glaucoma whose intraocular pressure (IOP) was uncontrolled with one or two glaucoma medications and who had latanoprost added as a second or third drug. Patients whose IOP decreased by 3 mm Hg or more were considered to be responders. RESULTS: The shortest length of follow-up was 2.3 months (median 5.8 months). Latanoprost was given as a second medication to 35 patients, of whom 22 (63%) responded, with a mean IOP reduction of 6.1 mm Hg (standard deviation [SD] 2.73 mm Hg) (28.7% [SD 12.10%]). Of the 18 patients to whom latanoprost was given as a third medication, 10 (56%) responded, with a mean IOP reduction of 6.3 mm Hg (SD 3.86 mm Hg) (24.5% [SD 10.12%]). INTERPRETATION: Latanoprost provides additional IOP reduction in some patients with open-angle glaucoma when added to one or two other glaucoma medications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".