MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800683796 · doi:10.1111/aos.13748

Optic disc drusen: understanding an old problem from a new perspective

2018· review· en· W2800683796 on OpenAlexaff
Steffen Hamann, Lasse Malmqvist, Fiona Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrusenPerspective (graphical)OptometryOphthalmologyMedicineMacular degenerationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optic disc drusen (ODD) are acellular deposits located in the optic nerve head of up to 2.4% of the population. They may develop as by-products of impaired axonal metabolism in genetically predisposed individuals, in whom a narrow scleral canal is hypothesized to play a role. Although ODD are often considered as benign innocent bystanders, recognized as part of a routine ophthalmological examination, the vast majority of patients with ODD have visual field defects. Optic disc drusen (ODD)-associated complications with severe visual loss, most often due to anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy, are also known to occur. There are no treatments available to prevent or ameliorate the vision loss caused by ODD. In children, the ODD are usually uncalcified and buried within the optic nerve head tissue. In these cases, the condition can be difficult to diagnose, as it often resembles a papilloedema with optic nerve head swelling caused by raised intracranial pressure. During the teenage years, the ODD progressively become more calcified and probably also larger, which allow them to be visible on ophthalmoscopy. With the advent and proper utilization of high-resolution modalities of optical coherence tomography (OCT), it has now become possible to detect even the smallest and most deeply located ODD. This allows for ODD detection at a much earlier developmental stage than has previously been possible and enhances the possibilities of research in underlying mechanisms. A review of the literature on ODD was conducted using the PUBMED database. The review focuses on the current knowledge regarding pathogenesis, diagnostics, clinical disease-tracking methodologies, structure-function relationships and treatment strategies of ODD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations138
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207