MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206215581

Neuro-Ophthalmological Optic Nerve Cupping: An Overview

2021· review· en· W4206215581 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ethan Waisberg, Jonathan A. Micieli

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsKensington HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptic nerveGlaucomaMedicineOptic discNerve fiber layerOphthalmologyOptic neuritisOptic cup (embryology)Optic neuropathyMultiple sclerosisBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethan Waisberg,1 Jonathan A Micieli2,3 1UCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, 4, Ireland; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Kensington Vision and Research Centre, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Jonathan A MicieliKensington Vision and Research Centre, 340 College Street, Suite 501, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3A9, CanadaTel +1 416 928-1335Fax +1 416 928-5075Email jmicieli@kensingtonhealth.orgAbstract: Optic nerve cupping or enlargement of the cup-to-disc ratio is widely recognized as a feature of glaucoma, however it may also occur in non-glaucomatous optic neuropathies. The most well-recognized non-glaucomatous optic neuropathies that cause cupping include compressive optic neuropathies, arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathies, hereditary optic neuropathies, and optic neuritis. Cupping is thought to consist of two main components: prelaminar and laminar thinning. The former is a shallow form of cupping and related to loss of retinal ganglion cells, whereas the latter involves damage to the lamina cribrosa and peripapillary scleral connective tissue. Differentiating glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous optic nerve cupping remains challenging even for experienced observers. Classically, the optic nerve in non-glaucomatous causes has pallor of the neuroretinal rim, but the optic nerve should not be examined in isolation. The patient’s medical history, history of presenting illness, visual function (visual acuity, color vision and visual field testing) and ocular examination also need to be considered. Ancillary testing such as optical coherence tomography of the retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell layer-inner plexiform layer may also be helpful in localizing the disease. In this review, we review the non-glaucomatous causes of cupping and provide an approach to evaluating a patient that presents with an enlarged cup-to-disc ratio.Keywords: optic disc cupping, misdiagnosis of glaucoma, nonglaucomatous cupping, differential diagnosis of glaucoma, optic disc pallor

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Same topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207