MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048504589 · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000001021

Acute Idiopathic Blind Spot Enlargement and Acute Zonal Occult Outer Retinopathy: Potential Mimics of Neuro-Ophthalmic Disease

2020· review· en· W3048504589 on OpenAlexaff
William A. Fletcher, Richard K. Imes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlind spotMedicineFundus (uterus)OphthalmologyAtrophyElectroretinographyOccultRetinal DisorderRetinopathyRetinalPathologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1988, William Hoyt, MD, et al described "acute idiopathic blind spot enlargement" (AIBSE) in 7 symptomatic patients who had no apparent abnormalities of the optic disc or surrounding retina. With the use of multifocal electroretinography, they showed that the scotoma was caused by occult retinal dysfunction. In 1992, J. Donald Gass, MD, described "acute zonal occult outer retinopathy" (AZOOR) in 13 patients who had sudden loss of often large zones of visual field without fundus abnormalities. Most patients developed zonal atrophy of retinal pigment epithelium and had no improvement in vision. Gass believed that AZOOR, multiple evanescent white dot syndrome, multifocal choroiditis, and AIBSE were all variants of the same disorder. Despite over 3 decades of numerous reports, the classification of these entities, their pathogenesis, and treatment remain controversial. AIBSE and AZOOR may be mistaken for an acute optic neuropathy, so it behooves the neuro-ophthalmologist to be familiar with these disorders. This review describes the initial recognition of AIBSE and its relationship to AZOOR.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuro-OphthalmologySame topicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s SyndromeFrench-language works237,207