Prevalence and characteristics of ocular pain in non-infectious uveitis: a quality of life study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: To survey the frequency, character, severity and impact of ocular pain on quality of life in adult patients with non-infectious uveitis (NIU). METHODS: This patient-requested cross-sectional survey study describes the results of three self-administered questionnaires (the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Dutch Language Version) from 147 patients with NIUs from a university-based tertiary referral centre in Utrecht. RESULTS: The mean Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ) Ocular Pain Score of all patients with NIU was 72 (±24), which is significantly lower than an ocular disease-free reference group (90±15, P<0.0001), indicating more ocular pain. This was true for all types of NIU, regardless of the localisation: although Ocular Pain Scores were lower in patients with anterior uveitis (AU) compared with patients with non-AU (mean 62 (±24) vs 74 (±24), P=0.04), patients with non-AU still scored substantially lower than the reference group that had no ocular history (P<0.0001). Patients with NIU also scored significantly lower on all other VFQ subscales as well as on the SF-36 subscales 'Role Limitations due to physical problems', 'Vitality', 'General health' and 'Bodily Pain' compared with controls. The VFQ Ocular Pain subscale correlated with other quality of life subscales (both VFQ-25 and SF-36), indicating a relationship between pain and quality of life. CONCLUSION: This study shows that ocular pain is highly prevalent in patients with NIU, regardless of the localisation. Furthermore, ocular pain has an impact on quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".