MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199446633 · doi:10.29309/tpmj/2014.21.01.1915

INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE

2018· article· en· W3199446633 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Professional Medical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraocular pressureGlaucomaDexamethasoneOphthalmologyIncidence (geometry)Group BOptometrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess the incidence of steroid induced rise in intra-ocular pressurein different group of patients. Place and duration of study: The study was conducted in thedepartment of ophthalmology Akhtar Saeed Trust Teaching Hospital of Akhtar Saeed Medicaland Dental College Lahore and Continental Medical College Lahore from Jan 2009 to Oct 2010.Material and Methods: Three groups were formulated in which group A comprised of normalpopulation with no ocular disease, group B included patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitiswhile group C comprised of chronic simple glaucoma patients with controlled intraocularpressure. Dexamethasone 0.1% eye drops were used four times daily for four weeks and patientswere evaluated weekly in terms of IOP monitoring after which they were labeled as either low ornon-responders, moderate responders or high responders. Results: In group A 40% of thepatients showed rise in IOP, group B showed 95% rise in IOP and the response in group C caseswas 100%. Conclusions: Topical steroids result in significant rise in IOP therefore carefulmonitoring should be done in all patients on corticosteroids.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.305 · 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