MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314978174 · doi:10.1258/jtt.2012.120313

The use of teleglaucoma at the University of Alberta

2012· article· en· W2314978174 on OpenAlexaffabout
Faazil Kassam, Samreen Amin, Enitan Sogbesan, Karim F. Damji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)MedicineOptometryService (business)Tertiary careGlaucomaMedical emergencyFamily medicineOphthalmologyBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the teleglaucoma service at the University of Alberta is to improve access for people in northern Alberta who have early-stage glaucoma or who are at risk for glaucoma. Two types of teleglaucoma service are offered: remote and in-house. A standardized approach is used to capture patient information (structured histories, examinations and fundus photographs) which is then sent to a tertiary care centre for grading and recommendations. Only one grader reads and makes management recommendations for each case. Reports are sent electronically. A total of 195 cases have been graded through the remote service since 2008. A total of 62 cases have been graded through the in-house service since 2011. The average reporting time for consultations in the in-house service was 7 days, and it was also 7 days for the remote service. We believe that the use of teleglaucoma can improve the way that patients are diagnosed and managed, both in industrialized and developing countries. Teleglaucoma is currently being used as a screening tool at the Aga Khan University Hospital in Nairobi with mobile units equipped with a fundus camera and a visual field machine.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207