MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410048128 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.151436

Retinopathy in the Era of Routine Hydroxychloroquine Monitoring

2016· letter· en· W2410048128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric Weinlander, Alexander L. Ringeisen, Mihai Mititelu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroxychloroquineMedicineRetinopathyDosingRheumatologySystemic lupus erythematosusLupus erythematosusBlindnessInternal medicineDermatologyOphthalmologyDiseaseOptometryImmunologyEndocrinologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a vital component of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatment, but it carries a significant risk of irreversible blindness from HCQ retinopathy. HCQ retinopathy is relatively rare, but new, more sensitive diagnostic techniques report a prevalence of up to 7.5%1. Moreover, HCQ retinopathy may progress even after cessation of therapy2, so early detection and primary prevention are critical. Currently, primary prevention consists of controlling the daily dose and/or cumulative dose to prevent overdosage3. We therefore read with great interest “Hydroxychloroquine Blood Levels in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Clarifying Dosing Controversies and Improving Adherence” by Durcan, et al 4 in The Journal of Rheumatology . We point out the implications of their findings for the use of weight-based dosing and the evidence base for HCQ retinopathy prevalence. In their study, Durcan, et al described how regularly measuring blood levels of HCQ in patients with SLE resulted in a higher … Address correspondence to E. Weinlander, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 206, Madison, Wisconsin 53705, USA. E-mail: eweinlander{at}wisc.edu

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)0.014
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityFrench-language works237,207