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 OpenAlexaff
Hussein Hollands, D Johnson, Simon Hollands, David L. Simel, Delan Jinapriya, Sanjay Sharma

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations160
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207