MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267705377 · doi:10.3928/0191-3913-20050901-11

Morning Glory Syndrome: Clinical, Computerized Tomographic, and Ultrasonographic Findings

2005· article· en· W2267705377 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Harasymowycz, Lyne Chevrette, Jean-Claude Décarie, Nelly Hanna, Maryam Aroichane, Jean-Louis Jacob, Jean Milot, Magda Homsy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticStrabismusVisual acuityOphthalmologyRetinal detachmentTomographyMorningOrbit (dynamics)UltrasonographyRetinalRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ophthalmic, radiologic, and ultrasonographic findings in morning glory syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients' charts. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included. Visual acuity was 20/200 or better in 50% of the eyes. Three eyes developed a retinal detachment. When computerized tomography of the orbit demonstrated peripapillary scleral staphyloma and intraocular calcifications, this correlated with poor visual acuity. Computerized tomography of the brain revealed abnormalities in three asymptomatic patients. B-scan ultrasonography demonstrated retinal tissue overhanging the peripapillary scleral staphyloma. CONCLUSIONS: Morning glory syndrome has a spectrum of severity, with most patients retaining useful vision. Orbital and cerebral computerized tomography scan as well as B-scan ultrasonography may help with diagnosis and 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.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.327
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 designCase report
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

Citations48
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & StrabismusSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207