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 OpenAlexaff
Amir Molaei, Vahid Karamzadeh, Sare Safi, Hamed Esfandiari, Javad Dargahi, Mohammad A. Khosravi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.010

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ophthalmic and Vision ResearchSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207