MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064225342 · doi:10.1177/0883073812460093

The Optic Disc Is Minimal in Children With Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

2012· article· en· W2064225342 on OpenAlexaff
Shuan Dai, Carmelina Trimboli, J. Raymond Buncic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptic discMedicineOptic nerveCohortOptic diskOphthalmologyPseudotumor cerebriIntracranial pressureRadiologyInternal medicineGlaucoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to characterize the optic disc morphology, particularly the cup-to-disc ratio of the optic nerve head in children with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. The medical charts and digital optic disc photos of children with confirmed diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension were reviewed retrospectively. The optic disc area, cup area, and cup-to-disc ratio were measured digitally using VISUPAC software, and the mean values of those parameters were compared to the published norms. Of children with idiopathic intracranial hypertension, 83% had absence of the physiological cup of the optic disc, compared to 10% of children in the general population of the same age. The median disc area was 2.2 mm(2), and median cup area was 0.0mm(2), compared to the published norms of 2.69 mm(2) and 0.44 mm(2), respectively. There is very significantly high prevalence of small optic disc cups in children with idiopathic intracranial hypertension, with the cup being absent on majority of cases in our patient cohort. This may signal an underlying systemic predisposition to the development of intracranial hypertension.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207