Incidence of visual impairment in Canada: the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveDetermine the 3-year incidence of visual impairment (VI) in Canada and its risk factors.DesignProspective 3-year cohort studyParticipantsData from 23 973 adults taking part in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging Comprehensive Cohort baseline and 3-year follow-up exams were included.MethodsInclusion criteria were 45 to 85 years of age, community-dwelling, and living near one of the 11 data collection sites across 7 Canadian provinces. Presenting binocular visual acuity was measured using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy study chart. Incidence of VI was defined as the development at follow-up of visual acuity worse than 20/40 in those with acuity better than or equal to 20/40 at baseline.Results3.88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.61–4.17) of Canadian adults developed VI over a 3-year period. There was a high degree of variability in the incidence between Canadian provinces with a low of 1.42% in Manitoba and a high of 7.33% in Nova Scotia. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause. Risk factors for incident VI included older age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.07, 95% CI 1.06–1.07), Black race (OR = 2.64, 95% CI 1.36–5.14), lower household income (OR = 1.73 for those making less than $20,000 per year, 95% CI 1.24–2.40), current smoker (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.37–2.32), and province.ConclusionThe incidence of visual impairment is common in older Canadian adults, varies markedly between provinces, and is largely owing to treatable causes. Risk factors for VI suggest subgroups that may benefit from interventions to improve access to eye care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".