MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902663667 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001338

Optometry and Vision Science: 2018 Year End Review

2018· editorial· en· W2902663667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael D. Twa

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaPolitical scienceBasic researchPresidential systemIndex (typography)Library sciencePublic administrationEconomic growthLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been an eventful year in science with new challenges, many new advances and, the maturation of trends that are continuing to build and shape our world. On the global stage, China has been an emerging power in research and discovery for decades. Globally, the total number of citable documents published has flattened out at 2.5 M since 2014. In January, 2018 the US National Science Foundation (NSF) reported that China has overtaken the United States in the total number of scientific publications. Nevertheless, the United States remains the most important producer of new knowledge, ranked 1st in h-index (2077 articles cited 2077 or more times) followed by many European countries, Canada, and Australia (848). China ranks 13th in h-index (712). The United States also remained the top destination for students seeking advanced research training (PhD and post-doctoral students). Investments in research and development by the US are estimated at $500 billion (and holding steady) with China at $400 billion and climbing. Federal research funding in the United States has been a source of lively debate and much uncertainty. Despite presidential promises to severely reduce research funding and radically changing the structure of the National Institutes of Health, none of these proposed structural changes were implemented. With strong support from congress, federal health research has seen modest increases for the National Eye Institute for each of the last two years. While funding has risen, the NIH continues to grapple with how best to interpret the definition of a clinical trial. The push for additional accountability for federally funded clinical trials is a reasonable goal. Nevertheless, including almost all clinical research in the expanded definition of what research activities constitute a clinical trial is an unfortunate overreach creating confusion and needless inefficiency at all levels. In 2018, scientific advances in biomedicine continued to be dominated by discoveries in cell biology and genetics. In an animal study, vision researchers were able to induce retinal glial cells to become rod photoreceptors that successfully integrated into the retina and brain. Retinal organoids, tissues grown in a dish that can mimic the structure and function of normal retinal tissue, have been a high priority for the NEI for the past several years. This initiative is now beginning to reap rewards as investigators are successfully demonstrating cultured retinal tissues that can develop and differentiate into the full range of short, medium, and long wavelength sensitive cones. Stem cell transplant therapies are being developed to treat retinal degenerations and other neurological diseases including spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis. Gene editing using the CRISPR-Cas system is rapidly becoming an important strategy in biomedical research. This technique for editing (insertion and removal of specific genetic sequences) has been widely used to modify genetic material as a way to repair or silence mutations. A group at Oregon Health Sciences has reportedly edited genes of human embryos treating a genetic defect, but this claim is still disputed. Another group in China first reported genetic editing in human embryos in 2015 and this technology has already been used in animal models, raising important ethical concerns and debates. Elsewhere in science, the NIH launched its precision medicine initiative: All of Us (https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2017/06000/Precision_Medicine_and_the_Future_of_Health_Care.1.aspx). The initiative will recruit 1,000,000 participants over the coming years for the purpose of linking genetic information to clinical, social, behavioral, and environmental factors. In vision science, this past year, we have seen a number of important advances. Arthur Ashkin, Gérard Mourou, and Donna Strickland were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for groundbreaking work in laser physics that was directly responsible for pulse amplification used in modern surgical lasers and many other applications. Optical coherence tomography continues to develop as an essential imaging technology as additional non-invasive angiography platforms were approved for clinical use. For the first time since 1996 a new class of medications was approved for the treatment of glaucoma. Latanaprostene bunod (Vyzulta) is a dual mechanism drug combining the proven benefits of a prostaglandin analog with a nitric oxide element to facilitate aqueous outflow through the conventional pathway. Also, netarsudil (Rhopressa) was approved as the first Rho kinase inhibitor which acts to increase outflow by the trabecular meshwork. There were several advances and innovations in dry eye therapy from TrueTear, an intranasal stimulator of tear production, to several pharmacological compounds that came to market. This area continues to gain momentum and we should expect to see additional developments targeting novel supplements and biologicals over the coming years. In contact lenses, designs for myopia are an area of active development as clinical interventions become more widely practiced despite the need for additional evidence regarding mechanism and best practices. Success with scleral lenses continues to influence how we treat keratoconus, transplants, post-surgical corneas and even anterior segment rehabilitation. Innovations in lens materials and design are further improving patient comfort, and experience. This list of advances and discoveries is far from complete, but it underscores some of the exciting areas that we will continue to bring to you over the coming year. This is only possible because of the hard-working Editorial Board, our distinguished reviewers, and most importantly, our authors. We have some new members joining the Editorial Board in January and I will be happy to introduce them to you next month. For now, allow me to express my thanks and sincere appreciation to Algis Vingrys, Lakshman Subbaraman, who will be leaving the board this month. Their hard work and dedication to advancing the journal by setting high standards and providing sage advice has been a valuable asset for our community. To each of you who takes the time to carefully and thoughtfully consider the work of your peers, to those who make it a priority to participate in the peer-review process despite all the other responsibilities that you may have, to those of you who serve your patients, the profession, the American Academy of Optometry, and the larger community of scientists and clinicians, thank you for your service to the Journal. 2018 has been a great year and we are looking forward to an even better one in 2019. Michael D. Twa Editor in Chief Birmingham, AL

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.496 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular and Laser Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207