Improved ways to screen for patients with Fabry disease, involving optometry in a multidisciplinary approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Fabry disease is considered a rare disease, based on its prevalence. It is recognized, however, that there are many individuals aff ected who are unscreened. This article aims to demonstrate how optometrists can help to defi ne improved ways to screen patients aff ected by this rare metabolic disorder, in a multidisciplinary perspective. Methods: A screening model, based on continuous education for optometrists was developed. Under this model, suspect patients identifi ed by optometrists are referred to Université de Montréal's vision clinic (EOUM) for further testing and assessment. Should ocular manifestations and/or case history prove relevant to these rare diseases, a urinary test is then performed to fi nd related biomarkers. When suspicions narrow to probable Fabry disease, the subjects are referred to metabolic disorder specialists for complete DNA testing and medical follow-up of their condition. Results: Continuous education lectures were given across Quebec, reaching nearly 60% of the province’s optometrists. Sixteen months following the model's implementation, ten suspected patients were referred. Of these, two new Fabry patients were confi rmed, leading to the diagnosis of fi ve other relatives with the disease. Two additional persons, diagnosed as Fabry patients, but lost to medical follow-up for many years, were once again placed under the care of Fabry experts. To this point, because of optometric involvement, seven new patients of Fabry were diagnosed and two were brought back under experts care. Conclusion: Continuous education lectures were given across Quebec, reaching near 60% of the province’s optometrists. Sixteen months following the model's implementation, ten suspected patients were referred. Of these, two new Fabry patients were confi rmed, leading to the diagnosis of fi ve other relatives with the disease. Two additional persons, diagnosed as Fabry patients, but lost to medical follow-up for many years, were once again placed under the care of Fabry experts. To this point, because of optometric involvement, seven new patients of Fabry were diagnosed and two were brought back under experts care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".