MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988235388 · doi:10.1097/yic.0000000000000295

Ophthalmic adverse effects of lithium

2019· review· en· W2988235388 on OpenAlexaff
John S.Y. Park, Rahul Sharma, Verinder Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhotophobiaAdverse effectLithium (medication)ExophthalmosIntensive care medicineOphthalmologySurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium is the current mainstay treatment for both acute and maintenance management of bipolar disorders. However, its narrow therapeutic index and array of side effects, although well-documented, can be challenging to manage. Comparatively, the side effects of lithium that involve the ophthalmic structures are not as well established in the literature and only partially appreciated, which can potentially lead to noncompliance. In this article, an extensive literature review of lithium and its ophthalmic adverse effects were performed and comprehensively summarized. Based on the search, documented ophthalmic adverse effects of lithium include: exophthalmos; abnormal eye movements; ocular myasthenia gravis; papilledema; photophobia; and abnormal tear film, contributing to dry eye disease. Additional studies are anticipated to be helpful in expanding the current understanding of lithium and its adverse ophthalmic side effects and certainly warranted to fill the knowledge gap. Close interprofessional management between psychiatrists and ophthalmologists is expected to be beneficial in patient 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 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207