Prevention of Glaucoma through Exercise: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary Open Angle Glaucoma (POAG) is an optic neuropathy that results in the loss of visual field. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is one of many risk factors for POAG. For over four decades researchers examined the relationship between exercise and reduction of IOP. POAG progresses asymptomatically over years and not all patients comply with long term drug regimes. Exercise could be an important complementary treatment but to be considered a viable early intervention for those at risk it is important to identify the most effective combination of intensity and duration. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the effect of these exercise parameters on IOP levels in a non-clinical population. Searches were conducted via PubMed and Google Scholar and 63 studies were obtained. Studies were excluded as per the requirements of the analysis or a lack of variance measures related to the mean change in IOP. The ten studies selected include sedentary or normally-active participants with normal baseline IOP (10 to 21 mmHg) who completed a single bout of mild (40% HR) to moderate (50 to 70% HR) aerobic exercise ranging from 2 to 60 minutes. There is a clear effect of exercise on the reduction of IOP ranging from 1 to 5 mmHg. Although we could not compute a global effect size because the 21 conditions did not each come from independent groups, we observe certain patterns in the results. First, the active and sedentary participants appear to benefit equally from exercise. Second, there is an almost twofold reduction in IOP from the mild to moderate intensity conditions. Finally, the duration of exercise appears to influence outcome for the mild but not moderate intensity conditions. The relationship between intensity and duration needs to be analyzed further in a longitudinal study that focuses on individuals at risk for POAG. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".