MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783110961 · doi:10.4103/jovr.jovr_208_17

Upcoming methods and specifications of continuous intraocular pressure monitoring systems for glaucoma

2018· article· en· W2783110961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaIntraocular pressureOphthalmologyTrabecular meshworkOptic nerve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness and vision loss in the world. Although intraocular pressure (IOP) is no longer considered the only risk factor for glaucoma, it is still the most important one. In most cases, high IOP is secondary to trabecular meshwork dysfunction. High IOP leads to compaction of the lamina cribrosa and subsequent damage to retinal ganglion cell axons. Damage to the optic nerve head is evident on funduscopy as posterior bowing of the lamina cribrosa and increased cupping. Currently, the only documented method to slow or halt the progression of this disease is to decrease the IOP; hence, accurate IOP measurement is crucial not only for diagnosis, but also for the management. Due to the dynamic nature and fluctuation of the IOP, a single clinical measurement is not a reliable indicator of diurnal IOP; it requires 24-hour monitoring methods. Technological advances in microelectromechanical systems and microfluidics provide a promising solution for the effective measurement of IOP. This paper provides a broad overview of the upcoming technologies to be used for continuous IOP monitoring.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.380 · 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