Optic Disc Topography in Pseudopapilledema: A Comparison to Pseudotumor Cerebri
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if confocal scanning laser (CSL) tomography can quantify optic disc topography in patients with pseudopapilledema (PP) and to contrast the regional topography of the optic disc in PP and pseudotumor cerebri (PTC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional optic disc images from 10 PP patients PP and 17 PTC patients were obtained using the Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT). Two conventional HRT parameters, volume above the reference plane and volume above the surface, were used to quantify global disc elevation. In addition, local topography was determined at 100 microm intervals along eight meridians at 100 to 1700 microm from the disc center. The global and local measures of disc topography in the two groups were compared statistically. RESULTS: Significant between group differences were detected for both global measures. Regional analysis revealed vertical symmetry and horizontal asymmetry in PP and PTC as well as significant between group differences in peripapillary height. CONCLUSIONS: CSL tomography can quantify disc elevation in both PP and PTC and may be useful for differentiating disc morphology in PP and PTC. The volume of the disc above the retinal surface is greater in PTC than in PP. However, most of the difference in elevation between the two groups occurs over the disc rim and peripapillary retina.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".