Differences between fellow eyes of acute and chronic primary angle closure (glaucoma): An ultrasound biomicroscopy quantitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare various biometric parameters between fellow eyes of acute primary angle closure (glaucoma) [APAC(G)] and fellow eyes of chronic primary angle closure (glaucoma) [CPAC(G)]. METHODS: Ultrasound biomicroscopy examinations were performed on 47 patients with unilateral APAC(G) and 41 patients with asymmetric CPAC(G) before laser peripheral iridotomy and pilocarpine treatment. Anterior chamber depth and width (ACD and ACW), lens vault (LV), iris curvature (IC), iris root distance (IRD), trabecular-ciliary process distance (TCPD), iris-ciliary process distance (ICPD), trabecular-ciliary angle (TCA), and other biometric parameters were compared between fellow eyes of APAC(G) and fellow eyes of CAPC(G). RESULTS: Compared with fellow eyes of CPAC(G), fellow eyes of APAC(G) had smaller ACD (P < 0.001), ACW (P = 0.007), TCPD (P = 0.016), ICPD (P = 0.008), and TCA (P = 0.006), as well as larger LV (P = 0.002), IC (P = 0.012), and IRD (P = 0.003). On multivariate logistic regression analyses, a 0.1 mm decrease in ACD (odds ratio [OR]: 0.705, 95%CI: 0.564-0.880, P = 0.002), ICPD (OR: 0.557, 95%CI: 0.335-0.925, P = 0.024), and a 0.1 mm increase in IRD (OR: 2.707, 95%CI: 1.025-7.149, P = 0.045), was significantly associated with occurrence of acute angle closures. CONCLUSIONS: Fellow eyes of APAC(G) had smaller anterior segment dimensions, higher LV, more posterior iris insertion, greater IC, and more anteriorly rotated ciliary body compared with fellow eyes of CPAC(G). ACD, ICPD, and IRD were the three most important parameters that distinguish eyes predisposed to APAC(G) or CPAC(G).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".