MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200163513 · doi:10.1097/icb.0000000000001218

SPONTANEOUS RESOLUTION OF RETINOSCHISIS IN THE SETTING OF NARROW-ANGLE GLAUCOMA: A CASE REPORT

2021· article· en· W4200163513 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aidan Pucchio, Austin Pereira, Shalu Pal, Netan Choudhry

Bibliographic record

VenueRetinal Cases & Brief Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinoschisisMedicineOphthalmologyGlaucomaConservative managementOptical coherence tomographyRetinalOptometryRetinaRetinal detachmentOpticsSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To present a rare case of retinoschisis in the setting of narrow-angle glaucoma that demonstrated spontaneous resolution with conservative management. METHODS: Case report presentation from the Vitreous Retina Macula Specialists of Toronto in December 2020. RESULTS: A 65-year-old woman with previous bilateral laser peripheral iridotomies for narrow-angle glaucoma was referred to a tertiary retina clinic for the assessment of query macular edema in the left eye. The patient presented with a blunted foveal reflex in the left eye, and optical coherence tomography imaging demonstrated diffuse retinoschisis of outer retinal layers in the peripapillary region and nasal macula. The patient elected for conservative management, and by 10-month follow-up, her retinoschisis resolved spontaneously. CONCLUSION: Only seven cases of retinoschisis in the setting of narrow-angle glaucoma have been identified in the literature. This is the first case in this setting to demonstrate spontaneous resolution with conservative management. Although laser peripheral iridotomies have been shown to resolve retinoschisis in narrow-angle glaucoma patients, clinicians should be aware of a conservative management approach to yield a positive improvement in retinal integrity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetinal Cases & Brief ReportsSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207