MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986605063 · doi:10.1002/hpm.2938

Eye clinic liaison officers service in the United Kingdom

2019· article· en· W2986605063 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vasilios P. Papastefanou, Swan Kang, Philippa Simkiss, Hadi Zambarakji

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOptometryEthnic groupFamily medicineObservational studyDemographicsNorthern irelandCertificationQuarter (Canadian coin)Service (business)White BritishSubspecialtyWhite paperDemographyOphthalmologyGeographyPopulationEnvironmental healthManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To investigate the role of eye clinic liaison officers (ECLOs) in the United Kingdom and analyse patients' demographics and services provided. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study. Data were collected from the Royal National Institute of Blind People for ECLOs in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England for the first quarter of 2015. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and t test as appropriate. RESULTS: Trusts with ECLOs support vary greatly in the UK regions. Only one-third of NHS trusts in England have an ECLO service. Over 4000 patients were assessed. The majority of patients were of White ethnic background (94%), lived alone (37%), had no carers (58%) and were in their 80s (29.5%). The principal ocular conditions causing sight loss and certification were age-related macular degeneration (41.6%) and glaucoma (18.1%). Approximately 70% of patients are first seen at 13 to 18 months from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: ECLO services vary in the UK regions. England has the lowest ECLO availability per trust and the majority of those assessed were of White British origin with AMD. There are significant delays from diagnosis to the first visit indicating the need for improved services. Further studies are necessary to develop the evidence base for the expansion and funding of ECLO services.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207