MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925496065 · doi:10.1016/j.ajoc.2019.03.007

Self-induced lens subluxation with avulsion of ciliary processes in Tourette Syndrome

2019· article· en· W2925496065 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina L. M. Francisconi, Kamiar Mireskandari, Peter J. Kertes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTourette syndromeOphthalmologyAvulsionLens (geology)AnatomyOpticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report a case of self-induced eye injury resulting in lens subluxation combined with avulsion of ciliary processes in a patient with Tourette Syndrome. OBSERVATION: A 14-year-old male had repeated involuntary trauma to the left side of his face. On exam, left eye lens subluxation combined with ciliary process avulsion were noted. Pars plana vitrectomy and lensectomy were performed. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: This report of self-inflicted ciliary processes detachment in Tourette Syndrome is the first of its kind. Ocular injuries reported in the literature include isolated cases of lens luxation, retinal detachment and orbital hemorrhage. Additionally, iatrogenic conjunctival laceration and corneal abrasion have been reported due to involuntary movements during clinical examination. This case provides further evidence that patients with Tourette Syndrome may be at risk of eye injury due to the involuntary jerk movements associated with this condition. Patients with involuntary tics that put their eyes at risk should be advised to wear safety eye wear to avoid eye trauma and its deleterious visual consequences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case ReportsSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207