MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043426783 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190125

Delisted routine eye examinations for nonrefractive eye conditions: a comparative analysis

2020· article· en· W3043426783 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
William Jeon, Graham E. Trope, Richard H. Glazier, Michael H. Brent, Yvonne M. Buys, Ya-Ping Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAstraZeneca (Canada)St. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalMedical diagnosisEye careRuralityEye examinationFamily medicineGovernment (linguistics)OptometryDemographyOphthalmologyVisual acuityInternal medicineRural area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> In 2004, Ontario delisted routine eye examinations for people aged 20–64 years, potentially encouraging patients seeking eye care to visit government-insured primary care providers (PCPs) rather than optometrists whose services had been deinsured. We investigated if utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive eye conditions increased after 2004 among Ontarians who were affected by the delisting. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a comparative analysis of the utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive eye conditions in Ontario using administrative data from 2000 to 2014. We included participants without a visit to government-insured optometrists or ophthalmologists in the year before the study year; we excluded participants with existing diabetes. Changes in utilization before and after delisting were statistically assessed using segmented regression analysis in subgroups stratified by age, sex, rurality and neighbourhood income. <h3>Results:</h3> A significant increase in utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses after 2004 was documented among people affected by the delisting: 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.0% to 18.7%) for people aged 20–39 years and 11.6% (95% CI 10.6% to 12.5%) for people aged 40–64 years. This corresponds to an increase in the number of patients who visited PCPs for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses of 10 690 (95% CI 321 to 21 059) for people aged 20–39 years and 20 682 (95% CI −94 to 41 457) for people aged 40–64 years. Among people aged 65 years and older (an age group not affected by the delisting), utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses was stable (<i>p</i> = 0.95) throughout the study period. Changes in utilization of PCP services for nonocular diagnoses were nonsignificant among people aged 0–19, 40–64 and 65 years and older. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> After delisting, utilization of the services of government-funded PCPs for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses significantly increased among Ontarians affected by the delisting. The impact on ocular outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of increased use of PCPs for ocular management warrants further investigation and policy-makers’ consideration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207