Refining Decisions for Identifying Primary Care Patients Who Require A Work-Up for Glaucoma: Intraocular Pressure Changes with Central Corneal Thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The factors associated with the increased risk of glaucoma include intraocular pressure (IoP), central corneal thickness (CCT), vertical cup-to-disc ratio, visual field index, age, and diabetes mellitus. We have investigated the relation of IoP with CCT in normal, healthy pre-presbyopic persons. Methods: A total population of 698 normal patients (1396 eyes), aged 4 to 40 years, were evaluated in two separate clinics, one in Houston, Texas, USA and the second in oakville, ontario, Canada. IoP was measured using a noncontact tonometry (nCT 20 Topcon). In Houston, CCT was determined by using the Pentacam (occulus Pentacam – Belinea) and an optical pachymetry that utilized optical low-coherence reflectometry (oLCR) technology, and in oakville, a Hagg-Streit slit lamp–mounted pachymeter was used. Results: of the total number of eyes tested, 1226 eyes had IoP of 21 millimetres of mercury (mm Hg) or lower and 134 eyes had IoP greater than 21 mm Hg. For the normal IoP group (n = 1226 eyes), the overall IoP mean was 15.63 +/– 2.87 mm Hg; the overall CCT mean was 550.21 +/– 39.64 micrometres (µm). In the normal IoP group, for every 10 µm change in CCT, IoP changed a statistically significant amount of 2.49 mm Hg (p <0.05 to <0.001), except for the 10 nm CCT bins above and below the 550 µm mean. Conclusions: Although many investigators have described a positive correlation between IoP and CCT, this relationship has not been demonstrated in normal, healthy pre-presbyopic persons. There is a significant change of IoP with CCT (2.49 mm Hg IoP change per 100 µm of CCT). These normative data allow primary eye care clinicians to accurately determine normal and abnormal IoP and refine the index of suspicion for identifying patients who need to be worked up for glaucoma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".