Risk factors for poor visual outcome in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Determine potential risk factors for progressive visual field loss in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial, a randomized placebo-controlled trial of acetazolamide in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and mild visual loss concurrently receiving a low sodium, weight reduction diet. METHODS: Logistic regression and classification tree analyses were used to evaluate potential risk factors for protocol-defined treatment failure (>2 dB perimetric mean deviation [PMD] change in patients with baseline PMD -2 to -3.5 dB or >3 dB PMD change with baseline PMD -3.5 to -7 dB). RESULTS: Seven participants (6 on diet plus placebo) met criteria for treatment failure. The odds ratio for patients with grades III to V papilledema vs those with grades I and II was 8.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-∞, p = 0.025). A 1-unit decrease in the number of letters correct on the ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) chart at baseline was associated with an increase in the odds of treatment failure by a factor of 1.16 (95% CI 1.04-1.30, p = 0.005). Compared with female participants, the odds ratio for male participants was 26.21 (95% CI 1.61-433.00, p = 0.02). The odds of treatment failure were 10.59 times higher (95% CI 1.63-116.83, p = 0.010) for patients with >30 transient visual obscurations per month vs those with ≤30 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Male patients, those with high-grade papilledema, and those with decreased visual acuity at baseline were more likely to experience treatment failure. All but one of these patients were treated with diet alone. These patients should be monitored closely and be considered for aggressive treatment of their idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".