MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134759058 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n7p13

Association Between Helicobacter Pylori Infection and Primary Open Angle Glaucoma

2014· article· en· W2134759058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vafa Samarai, Nasrin Sharifi, Sh Nateghi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpen angle glaucomaOdds ratioSeroprevalenceConfidence intervalHelicobacter pyloriHelicobacter pylori infectionInternal medicineGlaucomaCase-control studyGastroenterologyProspective cohort studyOphthalmologyAntibodySerologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: to compare the prevalence of Pylori infection in patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and control group with cataract. METHODS: This is a prospective case-control study. The participants were organized in two groups. First group (case) consisted of 35 patients with POAG and second group consisted of 35 age matched participants with cataract whose optic disk could be evaluated. Serum levels of anti H. pylori IgG antibody were evaluated with the method of ELISA. RESULTS: The seroprevalence of Pylori infection was 89.1 % (33 of 37) in patients with POAG and 59.5 % (25 of 42) in the control group. The difference was significant (P=0.008). The odds ratio for association between Pylori and POAG was 5.69 and the range of 95% confidence interval was from 1.58 to 20.50. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that Helicobacter Pylori infection might be associated with primary open angle glaucoma.

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)0.002
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207