MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diurnal Variation of Episcleral Venous Pressure in Healthy Patients: A Pilot Study

2001· article· en· W2029056867 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Blondeau, Jean-Pierre T trault, Crystallia Papamarkakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionMedicineIntraocular pressureGlaucomaOphthalmologyAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To study diurnal episcleral venous pressure (EVP) and its relation to intraocular pressure (IOP) in healthy patients. The influences of supine position and lid closure on EVP were also studied. DESIGN: Experimental observational study. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Twelve healthy patients with no eye disease had their IOP and EVP measured at 16h00, 22h00, 22h30, 06h00, 06h30, 09h00, 12h00, and 16h00. Measurements at 22h30, 06h00, and 06h30 were performed on supine patients, and the measurement at 06h00 was with the eye that had been closed for the whole night. In a second experiment, EVP was measured on patients who were lying supine from 22h30 to 16h00 with one eye closed during the day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Episcleral venous pressure and IOP at varying time points during a 24-hour period. RESULTS: Episcleral venous pressure was relatively constant throughout the day except for a slight reduction at 22h00. After lying down, the EVP increased by 3.6 mm Hg and remained increased as long as the patient remained in this position. Eyelid closure did not affect EVP. IOP measured with the Tono-Pen closely followed the variations in EVP. CONCLUSION: Episcleral venous pressure remains relatively constant throughout the day. It increases in the supine position with a corresponding increase in IOP. Lid closure does not influence EVP or IOP.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations98
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207