MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923100258 · doi:10.1159/000496233

Association between Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma and Cognitive Impairment as Measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

2018· article· en· W2923100258 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurodegenerative Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineGlaucomaNerve fiber layerInternal medicineOphthalmologyOpen angle glaucomaConfidence intervalCognitive impairmentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) affects neurological functions outside of vision, such as cognition. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association between POAG and cognitive impairment in African Americans. METHODS: Masked interviewers administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to patients enrolled in the Primary Open-Angle African American Glaucoma Genetics (POAAGG) study at the Scheie Eye Institute. Cases were further assessed for retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and visual field (VF) loss. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare mean MoCA score between cases and controls and to assess the association between POAG severity and MoCA score. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients completed the MoCA, including 70 cases and 67 controls. The mean age ± SD was 68.7 ± 11.2 years for cases and 65.7 ± 10.4 years for controls (p = 0.11). The mean MoCA total score (out of 30 points) was 20.3 among POAG cases and 21.3 among controls (mean difference = -1.03, 95% confidence interval, CI = -2.54 to 0.48, p = 0.18). After adjusting for age, gender, education level, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking status, the mean difference in the MoCA total score between cases and controls was -0.64 (95% CI = -1.72 to 0.45, p = 0.25). Among cases, more VF loss was associated with lower total MoCA score for mean deviation (adjusted linear trend p = 0.02) and VF index (adjusted linear trend p = 0.03). There was no significant association between average RNFL thickness and total MoCA score. CONCLUSIONS: POAG cases and controls had similar neurocognitive function as measured by the MoCA. Among POAG cases, worse VF loss was associated with lower MoCA. Future studies are needed to further elucidate the clinical effect of neuropathy in POAG.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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