MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212872192 · doi:10.1080/08164622.2022.2036578

The prevalence and causes of visual impairment among the male homeless population of Montreal, Canada

2022· article· en· W4212872192 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Optometry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual impairmentInterquartile rangeMedicineVisual acuityEye examinationPopulationDiabetic retinopathyIntraocular pressureOphthalmologyDemographyOptometryDiabetes mellitusPsychiatrySurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical relevance Homeless populations have lower health indicators, including in eye care. Few data exist on the levels and causes of visual impairment in Canadian homeless populations, and none in Montreal.Background This study aims to characterise the causes and levels of visual impairment, as well as eye care services utilisation among the Montreal homeless.Methods Using random sampling, five homeless shelters were selected. In each shelter, 20 participants were randomly selected. After obtaining informed consent, participants completed an ocular examination, which included: presenting visual acuity (pinhole as needed), intraocular pressure, confrontation visual field, dilated fundus examination, post-dilation autorefraction and questionnaire on social determinants of health.Results A total of 95 participants were examined, of which 97.9% were male. The median age was 49 years old (interquartile range 38–56.5). The age-adjusted prevalence of visual impairment (presenting visual acuity <6/12) was 23.6% (95% CI 15.1–32.9) compared to 6.0% in the Canadian population (Z = 77.9, p < 0.0001). With pinhole correction, the prevalence of visual impairment dropped to 5.8% (95% CI 1.7–11.8). Prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI 3.7–15.9) for cataracts, 11.4% (95% CI 5.9–19.7) for glaucoma or suspects and 4.7% (95% CI 1.7–11.9) for diabetic retinopathy. Lastly, 18.9% of participants had an ocular examination within the last year compared to 41.4% in Canada (Z = −4.5, p < 0.0001) and 13.7% had never had a comprehensive eye examination.Conclusions This sample population shows a prevalence of visual impairment which is four times that of the general Canadian population, with highly prevalent uncorrected refractive error, while accessing primary eye care twice less often.

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)0.000
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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.417 · 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