Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary It is the rare parent who has failed to hear the plaintive cry of their child asking “Are we there yet?” on a car trip to distant (or near) sites. Similarly, the field of translational research relevant to neuroprotection in glaucoma has asked the same question for more than a decade, perhaps silenced only by the blown cylinder of one famous failed trial. Meanwhile, basic and clinical science have continued to progress despite several potholes along the way. Now that the smoke has cleared and the engine retooled, we are able to see that we currently possess the tools for successfully carrying out trials in glaucoma neuroprotection. This talk will discuss why this is so, focusing on advances in detecting clinically relevant effects, improving the reliability of preclinical data, imaging sensitive biomarkers for “microprogression,” and managing the spread of variability associated with translational research. These recent developments will be used to make the argument that not only is the journey to neuroprotection nearing its completion, but it may even be time to start identifying a parking spot.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.024 |
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".