Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Incidental Discovery Versus Symptomatic Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aim to compare the clinical characteristics, disease course and visual outcomes between Canadian patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) who were incidentally discovered and those who sought care due to symptoms of IIH. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of consecutive IIH patients conducted at tertiary neuro-ophthalmology clinics. Patients were divided into Group 1 (incidentally discovered disease) and Group 2 (patients seeking medical care due to symptoms of intracranial hypertension). RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients were included in the study; of which, 75 (40.3%; Group-1) were incidentally discovered and 111 presented due to symptoms of IIH (Group-2). There were no differences in proportion of females (P = 0.101), age (P = 0.450), body mass index (P = 0.386), MRI findings of empty or partially empty sella (P = 0.41), and sella grade (P = 0.704). Group-1 patients were less likely to have experienced headache (P = 0.001), transient visual obscurations (P < 0.001), and diplopia (P = 0.026) at presentation. Group-1 patients were less likely to receive medical (P < 0.001) and surgical (P = 0.004) treatment. There was no difference in proportion of patients who lost weight between the groups (P = 0.848). At baseline, Group-1 patients exhibited better visual acuity (P = 0.001), Humphrey mean deviation (P < 0.001) and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (P < 0.001). Group-1 patients continued to have better visual acuity (P = 0.002) and Humphrey mean deviation (P < 0.001) at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A significant portion of IIH patients were incidentally discovered. This group exhibited a favorable prognosis and only a minority of these patients required treatment. The way in which patients enter the medical system may be a valuable way to risk stratify IIH patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".