MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125393397 · doi:10.1586/17512433.2.1.87

Iatrogenic glaucoma therapy failure: the adverse effects of topical antiglaucoma medication treatment outcome

2008· article· en· W2125393397 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Saleem, Eve J. Higginbotham

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaTrabeculectomyAdverse effectOptic nerveOptic neuropathyBrimonidineMedical therapyPharmacotherapyIntensive care medicineOphthalmologyDermatologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glaucoma, a group of eye diseases that share a characteristic pattern of deterioration of the optic nerve, is a leading cause of blindness internationally. The treatment options for this optic neuropathy continue to remain limited considering that patients may become refractory to either medical therapy or surgical intervention. The initial treatment of choice for most ophthalmologists is topical medical therapy. The goal of medical therapy is to reduce the intraocular pressures in an effort to either halt or slow the progressive deterioration of the optic nerve. However, topical therapy causes a spectrum of cellular responses that may lead to chronic conjunctivitis after the use of multimedication and/or long-term therapy. This chronic conjunctivitis may not only lead to intolerance to therapy, but is also attributed to a significant proportion of trabeculectomy failures due to scarring of the bleb. Since incisional surgery is a primary option for long-term management of glaucoma, particularly those patients with end-stage disease, it is important to investigate the presence of topical drug- mediated inflammation and its effects on further surgical failure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical PharmacologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207