Autoimmune Retinopathies: A Report of 3 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe 3 representative cases of autoimmune retinopathy (AIR). METHODS: Clinical records of patients with a diagnosis of AIR were analyzed for demographic data, clinical findings, ancillary and laboratory tests, and treatment employed. RESULTS: Three female patients diagnosed with AIR had bilateral reduction of electroretinogram amplitudes and elevation of visual field threshold within the central 30 degrees of the visual field that was disproportionately more severe than the clinical findings of retinal degeneration. The diagnoses were cancer-associated retinopathy, non-neoplastic AIR, and hereditary retinal dystrophy with secondary inflammation. Optic nerve involvement was also present in all cases. The patient with non-neoplastic AIR was successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids and immunomodulatory agents. CONCLUSION: High index of suspicion is essential for an early diagnosis of AIR. Visual function and electrophysiological tests should be included in the initial workup of patients who present with suggestive clinical signs and symptoms of AIR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".