The incidence of acute angle closure in Scotland: a prospective surveillance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence, and describe the clinical features and short-term clinical outcomes of acute angle closure (AAC). METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed AAC were identified prospectively over a 12-month period (November 2011 to October 2012) by active surveillance through the Scottish Ophthalmic Surveillance Unit reporting system. Data were collected at case identification and at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: There were 114 cases (108 patients) reported, giving an annual incidence of 2.2 cases (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6) or 2 patients (95% CI 1.7 to 2.4) per 1 00 000 in the whole population in Scotland. Precipitating factors were identified in 40% of cases. Almost one in five cases was associated with topical dilating drops. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at presentation ranged from 6/6 to perception of light. The mean presenting intraocular pressure (IOP) was 52 mm Hg (SD 11). Almost 30% cases had a delayed presentation of 3 or more days. At 6 months follow-up, 75% had BCVA of 6/12 or better and 30% were found to have glaucoma at follow-up. Delayed presentation (≥3 days) was associated with higher rate of glaucoma at follow-up (22.6% vs 60.8%, p<0.001), worse VA (0.34 vs 0.74 LogMAR, p<0.0001) and need for more topical medication (0.52 vs 1.2, p=0.003) to control IOP. CONCLUSION: The incidence of AAC in Scotland is relatively low compared with the Far East countries, but in line with previous European data. Almost one in five cases were associated with pupil dilation for retinal examination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".