MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911961397 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2018.7041

Dry Eye Disease: Consideration for Women's Health

2019· review· en· W2911961397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersShire
KeywordsMedicineAffect (linguistics)Quality of life (healthcare)DiseaseReferralHealth careGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disorder of the ocular surface and tear homeostasis that can result in discomfort, pain, and visual disturbance. Untreated, DED can become chronic, progressive, and significantly affect an individual's quality of life. Women are disproportionately affected by DED, are diagnosed at a younger age, and experience more severe symptoms compared with men. DED is associated with a wide range of comorbid conditions; there is a strong association between DED and autoimmune disorders, especially those that affect women at many times the rate of men. Treatment response questionnaires indicate women respond better to a wellness model of treatment for DED than men. Furthermore, women's health care-seeking behaviors provide opportunities for general practitioners, specialists, and women's health centers to help identify women with DED or at risk for DED for referral to an eye care specialist. This review of the prevalence of DED in women, and gender and sex-specific aspects of DED, highlight a significant opportunity for action. Earlier diagnosis and treatment of this common but burdensome condition could significantly improve a woman's 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.348 · 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