The Effect of Posture on Intraocular Pressure and Systemic Hemodynamic Parameters in Treated and Untreated Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess intraocular pressure (IOP), systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure (SBP, DBP, MAP) changes in the sitting, supine, and 20° head-down (Trendelenburg) position in treated (tPOAG) and untreated (uPOAG) primary open-angle glaucoma patients and healthy controls. METHODS: All participants underwent IOP and systemic BP measurements in the sitting, supine, and Trendelenburg positions during office hours. IOP and BP readings in the sitting, supine, and Trendelenburg positions were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-one tPOAG patients, 17 uPOAG patients, and 21 controls were enrolled in the study. Compared to controls, eyes in the tPOAG and uPOAG groups had significantly larger posture-induced IOP elevation upon changing from the sitting to the supine position (P = 0.020 and P = 0.032, respectively). Compared to controls, the IOP elevation in the Trendelenburg position was statistically higher for the tPOAG (P = 0.003), but not the uPOAG group (P = 0.840). All 3 groups had a similar pattern of SBP, DBP, and MAP changes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to controls, posture-induced IOP changes are more pronounced in treated and untreated POAG patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".