Visual Manifestations in Giant Cell Arteritis: Trend over 5 Decades in a Population-based Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with visual changes from giant cell arteritis (GCA) and to examine trends over the last 5 decades. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of a population-based cohort of patients with GCA diagnosed between 1950 and 2004. The clinical, ophthalmological, and laboratory features of patients with visual manifestations attributable to GCA were compared to patients without visual complications. Trends over time were examined using logistic regression modeling adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: In a cohort of 204 cases of GCA (mean age 76.0 ± 8.2 yrs, 80% female), visual changes from GCA were observed in 47 patients (23%), and 4.4% suffered complete vision loss. A higher proportion of patients with visual manifestations reported jaw claudication than did patients without visual changes (55% vs 38%, p = 0.04). Over a period of 55 years, we observed a significant decline in the incidence of visual symptoms due to GCA. There was a lower incidence of ischemic optic neuropathy in the 1980-2004 cohort vs 1950-1979 (6% vs 15%, p = 0.03). Patients diagnosed in later decades were more likely to recover from visual symptoms (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.71). Chances of recovery were poor in patients with anterior ischemic optic neuropathy or complete vision loss. CONCLUSION: Incidence of visual symptoms has declined over the past 5 decades, and chances of recovery from visual symptoms have improved. However, complete loss of vision is essentially irreversible. Jaw claudication is associated with higher likelihood of development of visual symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".