Neuroradiologic Screening in Normal-Pressure Glaucoma: Study Results and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if there was an increased prevalence of intracranial compressive lesions in patients with clinically diagnosed normal-pressure glaucoma compared with a group of patients with progressive primary open-angle glaucoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective, comparative, observational case series, the authors performed cranial magnetic resonance imaging in patients with consecutively diagnosed normal-pressure glaucoma (n = 62) and progressive primary open-angle glaucoma with controlled intraocular pressures (n = 70). The prevalence of intracranial compressive lesions, demographic data, and clinical characteristics were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Four of the 62 (6.5%) patients with normal-pressure glaucoma had clinically relevant intracranial compressive lesions involving the anterior visual pathway, compared with none of the 70 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Intracranial compressive lesions are an important diagnostic consideration in the workup of normal-pressure glaucoma.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".