MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154943860 · doi:10.3109/08820538.2013.810289

The Effect of Mydriatic Solutions on Cognitive Function

2013· article· en· W2154943860 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Ophthalmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMydriasisMontreal Cognitive AssessmentGlaucomaTropicamideRandomizationCognitionRandomized controlled trialOphthalmologyCognitive impairmentPupilSurgeryPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Anticholinergic and sympathomimetic ophthalmic solutions are used for mydriasis. These solutions have well-documented systemic side effects despite their topical administration. However, no studies have been conducted regarding the effect of mydriatic drops on cognitive function. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect, if any, of mydriatic drops on cognitive function, including memory, concentration, and orientation. METHODS: Participants were randomized into two groups using the technique of permuted block randomization, and randomization was stratified by gender, age, and education. Participants in Group 1 completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test with undilated pupils, while participants in Group 2 completed the MoCA test with dilated pupils. Administration time of the MoCA test was approximately 10 minutes, and each participant could receive a maximum of 30 points, with a score of 26 or greater being considered normal cognitive function. Dilation was achieved in both eyes with a combination of tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 2.5%. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the MoCA scores of Group 1 and Group 2 (p = 0.65). In addition, MoCA scores were not statistically different between the glaucoma and non-glaucoma subpopulations within each group. MoCA test scores were shown to correlate with education (p = 0.004), age (p = 0.0003), and race (p = 0.03). Patients with confirmed or suspected glaucoma whom eyes dilated required 10.8 minutes to complete the MoCA test, while patients with no confirmed or suspected glaucoma whom eyes dilated required 8.5 minutes to complete the test (p = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Age, race, and education were found to be the most important factors affecting cognitive function in this study. There was no significant difference in the MoCA test scores of participants with confirmed or suspected glaucoma and participants without glaucoma. There was also no significant difference in the MoCA scores of dilated participants and non-dilated participants as a whole. However, dilation significantly increased the amount of time required to complete the MoCA test among the glaucoma and suspected-glaucoma population. The results of this study suggest that physicians should spend more time with dilated glaucoma patients while explaining medical conditions and treatment instructions in order to ensure that patients have adequate time to comprehend instructions for glaucoma management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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