Maladaptive coping strategies and glaucoma progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of modifiable risk factors for glaucoma progression is needed. Our objective was to determine whether maladaptive coping styles are associated with recent glaucoma progression or worse visual field mean deviation.A hospital-based case-control study was conducted in the Glaucoma Service of Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital in Montreal, Canada. Patients with primary open angle glaucoma or normal tension glaucoma with ≥4 years of follow-up and ≥5 Humphrey visual fields were included. Cases had recent visual field progression as defined according to the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial pattern change probability maps. Controls had stable visual fields. The Brief Cope questionnaire, a 28-item questionnaire about 14 different ways of coping with the stress of a chronic disease, was asked. Questions were also asked about demographic and medical factors, and the medical chart was examined. Outcomes included glaucoma progression (yes, no) and visual field mean deviation. Logistic and linear regressions were used.A total of 180 patients were included (82 progressors and 98 nonprogressors). Although none of the 14 coping scales were associated with glaucoma progression (P > 0.05), higher denial was correlated with worse visual field mean deviation (r = -0.173, P = 0.024). In a linear regression model including age, sex, education, depression, intraocular pressure, and family history of glaucoma, greater levels of denial (β = -1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.32, -0.41), Haitian ethnicity (β = -7.78, 95% CI -12.52, -3.04), and the number of glaucoma medications (β = -1.20, 95% CI -2.00, -0.38) were statistically significantly associated with visual field mean deviation.The maladaptive coping mechanism of denial was a risk factor for worse visual field mean deviation. Further prospective research will be required to verify the pathways by which denial may exert an effect on glaucomatous visual field loss.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".