MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095713894 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001603

Dry Eye Disease in University‐based Clinics in Canada: A Retrospective Chart Review

2020· article· en· W3095713894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Etty Bitton, Marian Elder, Sruthi Srinivasan, Doerte Luensmann, Lyndon Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooAssociation for Canadian StudiesUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyArtificial tearsPopulationPediatricsFamily medicineOphthalmologyOptometrySurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207