<p>Dry eye disease ranking among common reasons for seeking eye care in a large US claims database</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dry eye disease (DED) is a complex multifactorial condition of the ocular surface characterized by symptoms of ocular discomfort, irritation, and visual disturbance. Data previously reported from this study showed an increase in prevalence and incidence of DED with age and over time. The objective of this study was to compare the ranking of DED prevalence among other ocular conditions that led patients to seek eye care. METHODS: In this population-based study using the US Department of Defense Military Health System claims database of >9.7 million beneficiaries, indicators of DED and other ocular conditions were analyzed over time. The overall prevalence (2003-2015) and annual incidence (2008-2012) of DED and other ocular conditions were estimated using an algorithm based on two independent indicators derived from selected diagnostic and procedure codes and prescriptions for cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion for DED and diagnostic codes for the indicators of other common ocular conditions. RESULTS: In 2003-2015, the most common ocular conditions were disorders of refraction and accommodation (25.84%), cataracts (17.14%), glaucoma (7.27%), disorders of the conjunctiva (6.76%), other retinal disorders (5.94%), and DED (5.28%). DED was the fifth most prevalent ocular condition in women (7.78%) and ninth most prevalent in men (2.96%). In 2012, DED had the third highest annual incidence (0.87%), behind disorders of refraction/accommodation (1.87%) and cataracts (1.50%). CONCLUSION: This study provided further epidemiologic evidence for DED as a commonly occurring condition that drives patients to seek treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".