Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant proportion of glaucoma patients present late, particularly in the developing world, and unfortunately, in an advanced stage of the disease. They are at imminent danger of losing remaining vision, and may also be afflicted with various socioeconomic and health challenges. The encounter with such a patient is typically characterized by anxiety/fear and sometimes hopelessness from the patient's perspective. The physician may also feel that they are in a difficult position managing the patient's disease. When dealing with such cases, we suggest a holistic, individualized approach taking into account the 'biopsychosociospiritual' (BPSS) profile of each patient. The BPSS model takes into account relevant ocular as well as systemic biology (factors such as the mechanism of glaucoma, level of intraocular pressure [IOP], rate of progression, life expectancy, general health), psychological considerations (e.g., fear, depression), socio-economic factors and spiritual/cultural values and beliefs before being able to decide with the patient and their care partner(s) what treatment goals should be and how they can best be approached. Treatment for advanced glaucoma can be highly effective, and patients and their care partners should be informed that aggressive IOP lowering to the low teens or even single digits offers the best chance of protecting remaining vision. This can be achieved safely and effectively in most cases with trabeculectomy (including an antimetabolite), and in some cases with medical and/or laser therapy. Vision rehabilitation and psychosocial support should also be considered in order to optimize remaining vision, replace fear with hope as appropriate, and thus improve the overall quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".