MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345911964 · doi:10.3109/02713683.2015.1128552

Coronary Artery Disease and Reticular Macular Disease, a Subphenotype of Early Age-Related Macular Degeneration

2016· article· en· W2345911964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rachel M. Cymerman, Adam H. Skolnick, W.J. Cole, Camellia Nabati, Christine A. Curcio, R. Theodore Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Eye Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteFoundation Fighting BlindnessResearch to Prevent BlindnessEyeSight Foundation of Alabama
KeywordsDrusenMedicineCoronary artery diseaseMacular degenerationProspective cohort studyDiseaseInternal medicineOphthalmologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Reticular macular disease (RMD) is the highest risk form of early age-related macular degeneration and also specifically confers decreased longevity. However, because RMD requires advanced retinal imaging for adequate detection of its characteristic subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD), it has not yet been completely studied with respect to coronary artery disease (CAD), the leading cause of death in the developed world. Because CAD appears in middle age, our purpose was to screen patients aged 45-80 years, documented either with or without CAD, to determine if CAD is associated with RMD. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of patients with documented CAD status and no known retinal disease in a clinical practice setting at one institution. Subjects and Controls: A number of 76 eyes from 38 consecutive patients (23 with documented CAD, 15 controls documented without CAD; 47.4% female; mean age 66.7 years). METHODS: Patients were imaged with near-infrared reflectance/spectral domain optical coherence tomography and assessed in masked fashion by two graders for the presence of SDD lesions of RMD and soft drusen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence or absence of RMD/SDD and soft drusen. RESULTS: RMD was more frequent in patients with CAD versus those without (Relative Risk [RR] = 2.1, CI = 1.08-3.95, P = 0.03). There was no association of CAD with soft drusen. CONCLUSIONS: A specific relationship between CAD and RMD suggests common systemic causes for both and warrants further study.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Eye ResearchSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207