MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526139430 · doi:10.1080/08820538.2016.1228386

An Overview of Treatment Methods for Primary Angle Closure

2016· review· en· W2526139430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farihah Anwar, Angela Turalba

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Ophthalmology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClosure (psychology)GlaucomaOphthalmologyIntraocular pressureAngle-closure glaucomaTrabeculectomyOptometrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness in the world. Angle closure glaucoma accounts for 25% of all glaucoma, with Asia having the highest rate. Angle closure is an anatomical variation, making the Inuit, Chinese, and other Asians more susceptible. Current treatments include medical, laser, and surgical modalities. PURPOSE: To identify the current treatment protocols for primary angle closure. DISCUSSION: The current general protocol to treat angle closure is to lower the intraocular pressure with medications and perform laser iridotomy. However, cataract surgery, laser iridoplasty, goniosynechiolysis, diode cyclophotocoagulation, and filtering surgery are additional treatment modalities used for primary angle closure. CONCLUSION: Primary angle closure occurs due to various anatomical angle variations. Laser iridotomy is not the sole method of treatment. Specifically, cataract surgery can be particularly effective in the treatment and prevention of angle closure. Recalcitrant cases can be treated with trabeculectomy and shunt implants, although these are not usually first-line treatments.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.374 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in OphthalmologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207