MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vision loss in giant cell arteritis

2021· review· en· W3183133675 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Donaldson, Edward Margolin

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGiant cell arteritisMedicineOptic nerveCentral retinal artery occlusionCiliary arteriesOptic neuropathyOphthalmoscopyOphthalmic arteryAnterior ischemic optic neuropathyCentral retinal arteryOphthalmologyRetinaPosterior poleRetinalAnatomyRadiologyVasculitisPathologyBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost two-thirds of patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) develop ocular symptoms and up to 30% suffer permanent visual loss. We review the three most common mechanisms for visual loss in GCA, describing the relevant ophthalmic arterial anatomy and emphasising how ophthalmoscopy holds the key to a rapid diagnosis. The short posterior ciliary arteries supply the optic nerve head, while the central retinal artery and its branches supply the inner retina. GCA has a predilection to affect branches of posterior ciliary arteries. The most common mechanism of visual loss in GCA is anterior arteritic optic neuropathy due to vasculitic involvement of short posterior ciliary arteries. The second most common cause of visual loss in GCA is central retinal artery occlusion. When a patient aged over 50 years has both anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy and a central retinal artery occlusion, the diagnosis is GCA until proven otherwise, and they should start treatment without delay. The least common culprit is posterior ischaemic optic neuropathy, resulting from vasculitic involvement of the ophthalmic artery and its pial branches. Here, the ophthalmoscopy is normal acutely, but MR imaging of the orbits usually shows restricted diffusion in the optic nerve.

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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractical NeurologySame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207