The Effects of Glaucoma on Quality of Life in Canadian Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glaucoma is the third leading cause of blindness worldwide. In Canada, approximately 7.9% of seniors have glaucoma. Although researchers have investigated the effects of glaucoma on quality of life (QoL), none have investigated its impact on multiple aspects of QoL in a single sample. In the present study, we investigate the effects of glaucoma on four dimensions of QoL, namely, physical well-being, social well-being, emotionalwell-being, and development and activity. Participants included 16,369 seniors who completed the Healthy Aging Survey from the population-based Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). Of this sample, 1,299 reported having glaucoma. Responses to 21 survey questions, each representing a single dimension of QoL, were analyzed. Collectively, these questions represented four dimensions of QoL. Responses to scaled questions from participants with glaucoma were compared to responses from the senior population using single sample t-tests. Responses to binary (yes/no) questions were analyzed using Chi square. Analyses indicated that compared to the population, participants with glaucoma scored poorer on questions representing social and emotional well-being as they reported more loneliness and less life satisfaction (all p< .05). Glaucoma affected numerous aspects of physical well-being as participants reported lower self-perceived health, less engagement in light sports recreation, and fewer hours per day of exercise and walking (all p< .05). Glaucoma also affected development and activity as compared those without glaucoma, a higher proportion of participants with glaucoma required assistance with personal care, house activities, transportation, and meal preparation or delivery (all p< .05). Also, participants with glaucoma drove less frequently (p< .05). Glaucoma affected four dimensions of QoL, yet most of the effects were reported for physical well-being, and development and activity. Specifically, participants with glaucoma felt less healthy and were less active than the senior population. They were also more likely to require assistance with aspects of daily life. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".