MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Book Review

2006· article· en· W4244960522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haraldur Sigurdsson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica Scandinavica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peter K Leaver The History of Moorfields Eye Hospital: Forty Years On Volume III 348 pages RSM Press , Abingdon, Oxon , 2004 ISBN 185315 580 2 Price: £30.00 Moorfields Eye Hospital in London celebrated its bicentenary in 2005. It is a remarkable institution; it serves London on an everyday basis, provides consultative care nationwide and has served as a prominent global leader in ophthalmology for two centuries. However, at the same time it has managed to maintain its reputation for being friendly and accessible; it is a place that is easy and comfortable to visit. Previous histories of Moorfields were written by Treacher Collin (1929) and Frank Law (1975). The third volume, Forty Years On, published in 2004, is written by Dr Peter K. Leaver, a long-serving consultant in vitreoretinal surgery at Moorfields. During those 40 years enormous changes have taken place at Moorfields. In 1967 the hospital discharged 7400 patients from 345 beds; in 2000 it discharged 14 300 from 80 beds. There were 18 consultants employed at the hospital in the early 1960s; today there are more than 60 members of consulting staff. Attitudes have also changed: in the 1960s, writes Leaver, ‘consultants often behaved like gods, while hospital matrons were usually queenly figures’. The central message of the book for all of us who work in ophthalmology concerns not simply how patient care has evolved at Moorfields, but how the doctors at the hospital have led the major changes all the way! Many members of staff have been involved, but key players such as Professor Barrie R. Jones, Dr Noel Rice, Dr Robert Cooling and house governor John Atwill had the foresight, knowledge and energy that kept their thinking ahead of that of politicians and bureaucrats. There used to be two Moorfields hospitals in London, one on City Road and the other at High Holborn. There was also an academic institute at Judd Street. These were all united in one place, in 1988 and 1991, at City Road Hospital. At the time merging hospitals was not a popular practice; Moorfields was ahead of its time. It also took a lot of courage to transform the hospital from an ‘esoteric centre of excellence’ (and provider of tertiary care) into a centre of ophthalmic primary care for London. However, it is because of this that Moorfields Eye Hospital has survived as an independent and expanding institution, with an international paediatric eye centre now in preparation and opening next year. The research carried out at the Institute of Ophthalmology has scored consistently highly in international ratings since 1990. This book is divided into four parts. The first gives a general account of the development of the hospital. Part two contains a more detailed description of the clinical, nursing and clinical support services, describing each subspecialty in turn. Part three represents academe, divided into medical education and research. Finally, part four describes the organization of Moorfields, its management and administration, finance, fabric and infrastructure and the Moorfields Alumni Association. Peter Leaver's description of events is lively. His text is never dull and his accounts of the political battles fought convey the excitement of the times: you want to know how it all ends! The text is comprehensive and understandable, even for readers who do not know much about health politics in the UK. I enjoyed this book. Leaver writes a very readable text and his account is authenticated by the fact that he was there when it all happened. The book is flavoured with interesting and amusing anecdotes about everyday life in the hospital and illustrated with good colour photographs that depict longstanding doctors and support staff alike.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1520.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Ophthalmologica ScandinavicaSame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207