MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074364271 · doi:10.2147/ppa.s4163

Medical management of primary open-angle glaucoma: Best practices associated with enhanced patient compliance and persistency

2008· article· en· W2074364271 on OpenAlexaff
Sadhana V. Kulkarni, damji, Buys

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Preference and Adherence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaIntensive care medicineDiseaseMEDLINEOpen angle glaucomaCompliance (psychology)Quality of life (healthcare)DosingCochrane LibraryDisease managementVisual impairmentBlindnessPhysical therapyOptometryAlternative medicineOphthalmologyPathologyPsychiatryInternal medicineNursingParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary open angle glaucoma is a chronic optic neuropathy often requiring lifelong treatment. Patient compliance, adherence and persistence with therapy play a vital role in improved outcomes by reducing morbidity and the economic consequences that are associated with disease progression. A literature review including searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of identified articles reveals the enormous public health burden in various populations due to the impact of glaucoma associated visual impairment on the overall quality of life eg, fear of blindness, inability to work in certain occupations, driving restrictions, motor vehicle accidents, falls, and general health status. Providing specific definitions for the frequently misunderstood terms "compliance, persistence and adherence" with reference to medication use is central not only for monitoring patients' drug dosing histories and clinical outcomes but also for subsequent research. In this review article, a summary of the advantages/disadvantages including cost-effectiveness of various medical approaches to glaucoma treatment, techniques employed for measuring patient compliance and actual patient preferences for therapy are outlined. We conclude by identifying the key barriers to ongoing treatment and suggest some best practices to enhance compliance and persistence.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Preference and AdherenceSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207