MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010482002 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v82i1.1591

Predicting the risk for angle closure as defined by the Shaffer System Using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography: A Simple Approach

2020· article· en· W3010482002 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dan Samaha, Sébastien Gagné, Marie-Ève Corbeil, Pierre Forcier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGonioscopyOptical coherence tomographyGlaucomaMedicineCalipersOphthalmologyCorrelationClinical PracticeCutoffNuclear medicineMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To propose a simple non-invasive method for screening patients at risk for angle closure using anterior segment OCT. Methods: Scans of nasal and temporal iridocorneal angles in glaucoma suspect patients were performed using OCT. Upon identifying Schwalbe’s line, the integrated caliper tool was used to draw a line to the nearest point of the iris to produce a measure ‘S-I’. Gonioscopy was performed and angles graded according to Shaffer’s classification to assess the correlation between both methods. Results: Thirty-four images were available for analysis. Spearman correlation coefficients between S-I anf gonioscopy grades were 0.81 for nasal and 0.77 for temporal quadrants respectively. Intraobserver ICC calculations demonstrated excellent reproducibility (0.98 and 0.99 for nasal and temporal angles) and excellent interobserver correlation (0.94 and 0.93). The diagnostic cutoff value of S-I for occludable angles was established at 330mm. Conclusion: S-I measurement strongly correlates with gonioscopy and may be a suitable alternative for evaluating risk for angle closure.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207