Canadian Glaucoma Study: 1. Study design, baseline characteristics, and preliminary analyses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Glaucoma Study is a multicentered, prospective longitudinal study designed to study a variety of systemic risk factors for the progression of open-angle glaucoma under a standardised interventional protocol for intraocular pressure (IOP) control. METHODS: Newly or previously diagnosed patients with early to moderate open-angle glaucoma were recruited consecutively from 5 hospital-based university departments. Baseline parameters, including an assessment of peripheral vasospasm, haematologic, coagulation, and immunopathologic variables were obtained. Newly diagnosed patients were targeted for a >or=30% reduction in IOP, whereas previously diagnosed patients entered the study at a physician-defined target IOP. After baseline examinations, patients were followed at 4-month intervals with standard automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, and confocal scanning laser tomography, and at 28-32-month intervals with stereo disc photography. If the patient had visual field progression with standard automated perimetry, a further >or=20% reduction in IOP was mandated. A standardized IOP treatment protocol, ranging from topical monotherapy to filtration surgery, was implemented. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients (131 [corrected] men and 127 [corrected] women, median age 65.0 years) were enrolled. Baseline median values for visual acuity, visual field mean deviation, untreated IOP, and refractive error were 0.10 logMAR, -4.04 dB, 25.0 mm Hg, and 0.00 D, respectively. Approximately 30% of the patients were hypertensive, 16% had cardiovascular disease, 9% thyroid disease, 9% diabetes, 14% migraine, and 19% were smokers. The median follow-up was 5.3 years, with 148 (57.0%) and 51 (19.8%) patients completing >or=5 and >or=7 years follow-up, respectively. The cumulative visual field progression rate at 2, 4, 6, and 8 years was 11.3%, 21.5%, 33.1%, and 43.5%, respectively. INTERPRETATION: We describe the study design and baseline patient characteristics of the Canadian Glaucoma Study and present some preliminary results. This long and close follow-up of a large group of patients will reveal the importance of several systemic factors for the progression of glaucoma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".