Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxic and nutritional optic neuropathies both present clinically with symmetric progressive bilateral vision loss, decreased color vision, central or cecocentral scotomas on formal visual field testing, and no relative afferent pupillary defect because of the symmetric nature of optic nerve involvement. In most cases, vision loss progresses over months rather than days to weeks, and vision decreases slowly. A thorough history is crucial to make a diagnosis. Specifically, exposure to drugs, alcohol and tobacco use, dietary intake, and occupational background should be investigated in any patient presenting with the bilateral symmetric slow visual loss.Early in the disease, optic nerves usually appear normal or, on occasion, slightly hyperemic. Continued exposure to a toxic substance or nutrient deficiency would cause the slow appearance of bilateral temporal optic disc pallor due to the injury of ganglion cell axons specifically in the papillomacular nerve fiber bundle. This would eventually lead to the diffuse pallor of the optic disc. If an obvious visual field defect is not shown on routine 30-2 perimetry, central 10-2 perimetry will demonstrate central or cecocentral scotomas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".