Refining decisions on which primary care patients to screen for glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Glaucoma, which is often accompanied by elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), causes progressive optic nerve atrophy and blindness. Among ocular structure parameters abnormalities in central corneal thickness (CCT), cup-to-disc (C/D) ratio, inter-eye C/D ratio asymmetry, optic disc area, and neuro-retinal rim area (N-RRA) appear to be highly correlated with glaucoma. We compare these specific ocular structures in a group of young normal pre-presbyopic patients and in a group of patients being treated for glaucoma. Methods: After written informed consent, 1433 consecutive normal, and 56 consecutive patients being treated for glaucoma were assessed by including age, race, sex, IOP (NCT), C/D ratio, optic disc area, N-RRA (Optos), central center thickness (CCT), and anterior chamber depth. Results: Combinations of findings in CCT, C/D ratio, C/D ratio asymmetry, disc area, and N-RRA (assessed by Z-score) were present in 65.52% of patients being treated for glaucoma and 22.96% of young normal patients. For young normal patients, overall average CCT was 550.37+/-39.47µm. Overall average C/D ratio was 0.39+/-0.11. Inter-eye C/D asymmetry was 0.02+/-0.06. Overall average disc area was 2.46+/-0.49mm2 (7863.54+/1630.42 pixels). Overall average N-RRA was 1.44+/-0.35mm2 (4785.88+/1161.14 pixels). C/D ratio increased modestly with disc area increase, an increase not associated with thinning N-RRA. Thin N-RRA was associated with small optic discs that had large C/D (t=-8.21, p=0.000, DF=93). There was a significant difference between young normal patients and patients being treated for glaucoma in CCT, C/D ratio, C/D ratio asymmetry, disc area, and N-RRA. Conclusion: More than one in five (22.96%) young normal patients has ocular structure findings similar to those found in patients being treated for glaucoma. These results will help refine decisions on which primary eye care patient to screen 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".