Episcleral Venous Pressure in Younger and Older Subjects in the Sitting and Supine Positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intraocular pressure is higher in older than younger subjects during the day and night. We attempted to determine whether episcleral venous pressure could explain the difference in the sitting and supine positions. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We compared episcleral venous pressure, intraocular pressure, and blood pressure in a group of younger subjects aged 18 to 30 years and in a group of older subjects aged 65 years or older. The above measurements were performed in the sitting position and after 15 minutes in the supine position. RESULTS: The main difference between the groups was their systemic conditions. Comparing both groups, episcleral venous pressure and intraocular pressure were not different in the sitting position. However, in the supine position, episcleral venous pressure (9.6 vs. 8.3 mm Hg) (P < 0.01) and intraocular pressure (17.1 vs. 15.6 mm Hg) (P < 0.05) were higher in the older group. Statistically, a within-group analysis showed a significant increase in intraocular pressure in the supine position for both the younger (+ 0.8 mm Hg) (P < 0.001) and older subjects (+ 1.8 mm Hg) (P < 0.02). This was associated with an increased episcleral venous pressure in younger (+ 0.4 mm Hg) (P < 0.001) and older subjects (+1 mm Hg) (P < 0.02). There was no gender difference in intraocular pressure and episcleral venous pressure. No differences were found for intraocular pressure and episcleral venous pressure in subjects having certain systemic conditions. Blood pressure was higher for older subjects (P < 0.001). It decreased in the supine position for both groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraocular pressure and episcleral venous pressure were not different in the younger and older group in the sitting position. They were higher in the supine position for older subjects. There was no gender difference.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".