MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280497213 · doi:10.1159/000524699

Tacrolimus Optic Neuropathy Mimicking Papilledema

2022· article· en· W4280497213 on OpenAlexaff
Isra M. Hussein, Jonathan A. Micieli

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Ophthalmology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsKensington HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTacrolimusDiscontinuationOptic neuropathyPapilledemaEdemaSurgeryOphthalmologyTransplantationOptic nerve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tacrolimus (FK506) is a potent and effective immunosuppressive agent, mainly utilized after solid organ transplantation. We report the clinical features of tacrolimus optic neuropathy (TON) in a patient on tacrolimus therapy that had an exhaustive workup not revealing any additional cause. The patient was a 60-year-old man post-cardiac transplantation who presented with a 5-month history of vision loss OD and 10 days of vision loss OS. Dilated exam showed significant optic disc edema in both eyes (OCT RNFL 442 μm OD and 330 μm OS). Multiple lumbar punctures showed a normal opening pressure. After discontinuation of tacrolimus, he noticed gradual improvement in his vision and 10-month follow-up revealed significantly improved visual function and resolved optic disc edema. This case report adds significant optic disc edema to the clinical characteristics of TON. TON should be suspected in any patient on this medication with a new optic neuropathy and negative workup for infectious or inflammatory causes. Discontinuation of the medication and change to cyclosporine can result in improvement in vision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in OphthalmologySame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207