MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of coronary artery disease as a risk factor for reticular pseudodrusen

2017· article· en· W2747196657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rachel McCarter, Gareth J. McKay, Nicola Quinn, Usha Chakravarthy, Tom MacGillivray, G.W. Robertson, Enrico Pellegrini, Emanuele Trucco, Michelle C. Williams, Tünde Pető, Baljean Dhillon, Edwin JR van Beek, David E. Newby, Frank Kee, Ian Young, Ruth Hogg

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's UniversityMedical Research CouncilAtlantic PhilanthropiesPublic Health AgencyUnited Kingdom Clinical Research CollaborationQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseConfoundingMacular degenerationInternal medicineRisk factorDrusenCardiologyOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) are a risk factor for late age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Associations between RPD and coronary artery disease (CAD) have been reported from small case-control studies. This study investigated the association of RPD within a predominantly CAD cohort. METHODS: A subgroup of subjects from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) underwent ultrawide field (UWF) retinal imaging CAD determined by CTCA and was categorised as normal, non-obstructive or obstructive. Specific AMD features in UWF images were graded. Standardised grids were used to record the spatial location of AMD features, including RPD. Multivariate confounder adjusted regression models assessed the association between RPD and CAD. RESULTS: The 534 participants were aged 27-75 years (mean 58±9 years; 425 (80%) ≥50 years) with a male preponderance (56%). Within the study sample, 178 (33%) had no CAD, 351 (66%) had CAD. RPD was detected in 30 participants (5.6%) and bilaterally in 23. Most participants with bilateral RPD had intermediate AMD 17 (74%). After adjustment for potential confounders (age, sex, drusen >125 µm, smoking status), multivariate analysis found no significant association between CAD and RPD (OR 1.31; 95% CI (0.57 to 3.01); p=0.52). A significant association was identified between RPD and intermediate AMD (OR 3.18; 95% CI (1.61 to 6.27); p=0.001). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to support an association between CAD and RPD. RPD was strongly associated with intermediate AMD features. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01149590, Post results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207