Management of Optic Neuritis in Canada: Survey of Ophthalmologists and Neurologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute isolated optic neuritis is often the first manifestation of multiple sclerosis (MS), and its management remains controversial. Over the past decade, with the advent of new disease-modifying agents, management of isolated optic neuritis has become more complicated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current practice patterns of Canadian ophthalmologists and neurologists in the management of acute optic neuritis, and to evaluate the impact of recently published randomized clinical trials. DESIGN: Mail survey. METHODS: All practicing ophthalmologists and neurologists in Canada were mailed a survey evaluating the management of isolated acute optic neuritis and familiarity with recent clinical trials. Surveys for 1158 were mailed, and completed surveys were collected anonymously through a datafax system. Second and third mailings were sent to non-respondents 6 and 12 weeks later. RESULTS: The final response rate was 34.5%. Although many acute optic neuritis patients initially present to ophthalmologists, neurologists are the physicians primarily managing these patients. Ordering magnetic resonance imaging, and treating with high dose intravenous steroids has become the standard of care. However, 15% of physicians (14% of ophthalmologists and 16% of neurologists) continue to prescribe low dose oral steroids, and steroids are being given for reasons other than to shorten the duration of visual symptoms by 73% of ophthalmologists and 50% of neurologists. More neurologists than ophthalmologists are familiar with recent clinical trials involving disease-modifying agents. CONCLUSION: Although the management of acute optic neuritis has been evaluated in large clinical trials that were published in major international journals, some ophthalmologists and neurologists are not following evidence-based recommendations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".