Ophthalmic manifestations of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-IgG-associated disorder other than optic neuritis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Optic neuritis (ON) is the primary ophthalmic manifestation of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-IgG-associated disorder (MOGAD), but numerous reports have expanded the visual manifestations of this condition. The goal of this study was to synthesise the extensive literature on this topic to help ophthalmologists understand when testing for MOG-IgG should be considered. METHOD: A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searches were conducted using Ovid MEDLINE (from January 1, 1948 to April 1, 2020) and Ovid EMBASE (from January 1, 1947 to April 1, 2020). Inclusion criteria included studies describing non-isolated ON ophthalmic manifestations where cell-based assays were used for the detection of MOG antibodies. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles representing 62 patients with a median age of 32.0 (range 2-65), female gender (51%) and follow-up of 20.0 months (range: 1-240) were included. Twenty-nine patients had non-isolated ON afferent visual manifestations: uveitis, peripheral ulcerative keratitis, acute macular neuroretinopathy, neuroretinitis, venous stasis retinopathy, large preretinal macular haemorrhage, orbital inflammatory syndrome, orbital apex syndrome, optic perineuritis, papilloedema and homonymous visual field defects. Incomplete recovery of ON was associated with a case of Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy. Efferent ophthalmic manifestations included cranial neuropathies, internuclear ophthalmoplegia, central nystagmus, saccadic intrusions and ocular flutter. Cranial nerve involvement was secondary to enhancement of the cisternal portion or brainstem involvement. All included cases were treated with corticosteroids with 31% of cases requiring additional immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MOGAD has been associated with various afferent and efferent ophthalmic manifestations apart from isolated ON. Awareness of these findings may result in earlier diagnosis and treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".