Congenital Glaucoma and CHARGE Syndrome: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report a rare case of congenital glaucoma in a patient with CHARGE syndrome, present gonioscopic photographs, and explore mechanisms of disease that may account for this association. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We describe a 35-week-old girl with previously diagnosed CHARGE syndrome who presented with corneal edema, buphthalmos, and elevated intraocular pressure in the left eye. She was subsequently diagnosed with congenital glaucoma and started on topical and oral therapy. RESULTS: Examination under anesthesia confirmed the above findings as well as bilateral abnormal angles with an anterior iris insertion at the level of the posterior trabecular meshwork, prominent iris vasculature and stromal strands, and nonvisible scleral spur and ciliary body bands. Trabeculotomy and trabeculectomy were performed in the left eye with a poor outcome. CHARGE syndrome is a complex neurocristopathy, and we propose that the abnormal angle findings and associated asymmetric glaucoma in our patient share a common mechanism of neural crest cell dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: CHARGE syndrome can be associated with congenital glaucoma and we emphasize the importance of a thorough ophthalmic examination to detect glaucoma with surgical management as deemed appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".