MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116726476 · doi:10.5507/bp.2013.015

Treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy with beta-blocker metipranolol

2013· article· en· W2116726476 on OpenAlexfundno aff
O Chrapek, B Jirková, Vít Kandrnal, J Řehák, Martin Šín

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Papers · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaUniversitätsklinikum Tübingen
KeywordsSerous fluidPlaceboMedicinePlacebo groupInternal medicineProspective cohort studyGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the systemically administered betablocker metipranolol on the course of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). METHODS: A prospective double-blind study involving 48 patients with a first attack of CSC not exceeding two weeks and who agreed to the follow-up ophthalmology examinations every week. The group was divided into a metipranolol group (n=23), receiving 10 mg of drug twice per day and a placebo group (n=25). The outcome measure was time in weeks from drug intervention (metipranolol vs. placebo) to reattachment of macula neuroepithelium. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in duration of CSC in patients who used metipranolol and those who used placebo (P=0.341). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective double-blind study, we found no effect of the betablocker metipranolol on the duration of central serous chorioretinopathy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical PapersSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207