Ophthalmic Timolol Hallucinations: A Case Series and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Systemic absorption and central nervous system (CNS) penetration of timolol drops are a well-studied phenomenon, resulting in common side effects such as bradycardia, bronchospasm, fatigue, and confusion. More serious CNS side effects, such as psychosis and depression, however, are rarely attributed to eye drops. We report a case series in which patients developed visual hallucinations secondary to topical ocular timolol use. METHODS: This study is a case series and review of the literature. RESULTS: Four patients with glaucoma developed visual hallucinations while using topical timolol. The patients were all elderly, caucasian females with associated CNS pathology. All patients had resolution of symptoms upon discontinuation and a positive retrial test to confirm the association. CONCLUSIONS: The rarity of this side effect and its anecdotal predilection for elderly, caucasian females with underlying neurological dysfunction, may involve a yet unknown predisposition or hypersensitivity to beta blocker action, such as blood brain barrier disruption leading to increased susceptibility to the medication. This case series highlights an important, although rare, side effect of this medication which clinicians should be aware of especially when using it in elderly patients who may have coexisting CNS pathology. It is important that this side effect be recognized and appropriately managed to prevent otherwise unnecessary investigations and treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".