MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184612321 · doi:10.4103/pajo.pajo_20_25

Ocular findings in patients undergoing cancer treatment

2025· article· en· W3184612321 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacqueline Coblentz, Christina Mastromonaco, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Pan-American Journal of Ophthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: Our goal is to perform a complete clinical ophthalmologic examination in cancer patients receiving treatment (radiation, chemotherapy, or combinations) in order to assess adverse ocular events. Methodology: This study was conducted at the McGill University Health Centre. Necessary approval by the hospital ethics regulatory board was obtained prior to recruitment of patients and commencement of the study. The details of the study were explained to patients prior to securing informed consent. Inclusion criteria were as follows: all patients receiving any modality of treatment for any type of cancer, with or without ocular complaints. Exclusion criteria were as follows: inability to or difficulty in visiting the eye clinic for subsequent follow-ups. A comprehensive ophthalmologic evaluation was conducted, including assessment of visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure measurement, dilated fundus examination, and optical coherence tomography of both the anterior and posterior segments. Data gathered from the initial visit served as baseline for the patient’s symptoms and health status of the patient’s eye, as well as type of cancer and treatment modality. Results: We analyzed data for 118 patients with cancer diagnosis. The median age was 67 years (29–93 years). Regarding gender, 73 (61.86%) were female and 45 (38.14%) were male. Among all patients, 51 (43.22%) had breast cancer, 29 (24.58%) had lung cancer, 21 (17.80%) had hematological cancer, and 17 (14.41%) had gastrointestinal cancer. Eighty-two patients (69.49%) received chemotherapy as their main treatment, whereas 36 (30.51%) received radiation therapy. We identified 69 patients (58.47%) with alterations in the ocular examination, which consisted of dry eyes in 41 patients (34.75%) and cataracts in 28 patients (23.73%). Conclusion: Cancer treatment may lead to ocular signs and symptoms including affecting visual acuity. Early recognition of these side effects is important to minimize ocular manifestations and to improve quality of life throughout the treatment. Specific associations between ocular findings and a particular cancer treatment need yet to be determined.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Pan-American Journal of OphthalmologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207