MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020008008 · doi:10.1177/0960327120918307

A review of neuropsychiatric adverse events from topical ophthalmic brimonidine

2020· review· en· W3020008008 on OpenAlexaff
Nevio Cimolai

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman & Experimental Toxicology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrimonidineMedicineClonidineVigilance (psychology)Adverse effectGlaucomaTopical medicationIntraocular pressureAnesthesiaOphthalmologyPharmacologyPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brimonidine is a first-line topical medication for increased intraocular pressure and glaucoma which may be used alone or in conjunction with other topical therapies. Its structural and pharmacological comparabilities to clonidine give way to the hypothesis that it may cause neuropsychiatric side effects. The majority of case reports citing brimonidine toxicity, either for topical or peripheral exposure, include pediatric age groups but especially infants. Among the latter, a dose-response phenomenon is evident. Dose-response correlates have also been shown among adults. Case series and prospective double-blind treatment studies also give evidence for the occurrence of several central nervous system adverse reactions. Topical ophthalmic brimonidine use should be followed for the occurrence of neuropsychiatric disturbances generally, and enhanced vigilance should be maintained for at-risk populations.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman & Experimental ToxicologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207