Dry Eye Disease in University‐based Clinics in Canada: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Dry eye disease (DED) imposes a substantial burden on patients, which can lead to significant economic consequences for society. We provide insights into the DED patient population and DED diagnostic/management practices in Canada, which to date have been inadequately addressed in the literature. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe DED patient demographic/clinical characteristics alongside DED diagnosis/management in university-based optometry clinics in Canada. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of nonconcurrent non-Sjögren patients with DED at two university-based optometry clinics in Montreal and Waterloo. Waterloo charts with a diagnosis of DED and all charts from the Montreal dry eye clinic were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Overall, 200 charts were reviewed. Most patients were female (Montreal, 76%; Waterloo, 72%), and the mean age was 57.2 ± 14.9 years at Montreal and 52.6 ± 20.1 years at Waterloo. Patients commonly reported multiple health conditions (e.g., allergies [Montreal, 44%; Waterloo, 36%]), and high use of systemic nonocular medications was observed (Montreal, 76%; Waterloo, 62%). Clinical signs and symptoms of DED were recorded more often in Montreal patients than in Waterloo patients (e.g., dryness symptoms, 100 vs. 72%; tear breakup time, 100 vs. 60%). Warm compresses (Montreal, 63%; Waterloo, 83%) and artificial tears (Montreal, 94%; Waterloo, 96%) were the most frequently recommended nonmedical treatment and ocular lubricant, respectively. Topical steroids were the most frequently prescribed medications (Montreal, 22%; Waterloo, 21%), with typically three to four different interventions recommended per patient at each clinic. No relationship was found between symptoms and clinical signs or recommended interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective chart review provided the demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnosis, and management options for DED patients in Canadian university-based optometry clinics. The more comprehensive assessments conducted at Montreal may be beneficial to better monitor the progression of DED and to determine treatment effects over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".