MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170177550 · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.5099

Do Findings on Routine Examination Identify Patients at Risk for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma?

2013· review· en· W2170177550 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaOdds ratioIntraocular pressureOpen angle glaucomaOphthalmologyPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness worldwide, and its insidious onset is often associated with diagnostic delay. Since glaucoma progression can often be effectively diminished when treated, identifying individuals at risk for glaucoma could potentially lead to earlier detection and prevent associated vision loss. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the diagnostic accuracy of examination findings and relevant risk factors in identifying individuals with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), the most common form of glaucoma in North America. DATA SOURCES: Structured Medline (January 1950-January 2013) search and a hand search of references and citations of retrieved articles yielding 57 articles from 41 studies. STUDY SELECTION: Population-based studies of high-level methods relating relevant examination findings of cup-to-disc ratio (CDR), CDR asymmetry, intraocular pressure (IOP), and demographic risk factors to the presence of POAG. RESULTS: The summary prevalence of glaucoma in the highest-quality studies was 2.6% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.1%). Among risk factors evaluated, high myopia (≥6 diopters; odds ratio [OR], 5.7; 95% CI, 3.1-11) and family history (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.0-5.6) had the strongest association with glaucoma. Black race (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.4-5.9) and increasing age (especially age >80 years; OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3) were also associated with an increased risk. As CDR increased, the likelihood for POAG increased with a likelihood ratio (LR) of 14 (95% CI, 5.3-39) for CDR of 0.7 or greater. Increasing CDR asymmetry was also associated with an increased likelihood for POAG (CDR asymmetry ≥0.3; LR, 7.3; 95% CI, 3.3-16). No single threshold for CDR or asymmetry ruled out glaucoma. The presence of a disc hemorrhage (LR, 12; 95% CI, 2.9-48) was highly suggestive of glaucoma, but the absence of a hemorrhage was nondiagnostic (LR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98). At the commonly used cutoff for high IOP (≥22), the LR was 13 (95% CI, 8.2-17), while lower IOP made glaucoma less likely (LR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.76). We found no studies of screening examinations performed by generalist physicians in a routine setting. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Individual findings of increased CDR, CDR asymmetry, disc hemorrhage, and elevated IOP, as well as demographic risk factors of family history, black race, and advanced age are associated with increased risk for POAG, but their absence does not effectively rule out POAG. The best available data support examination by an ophthalmologist as the most accurate way to detect 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.296 · 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