MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313310868 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002107

Effects of Myopia and Glaucoma on the Neural Canal and Lamina Cribrosa Using Optical Coherence Tomography

2022· article· en· W4313310868 on OpenAlexaff
Sieun Lee, Morgan Heisler, Dhanashree Ratra, Vineet Ratra, Paul J. Mackenzie, Marinko V. Šarunic, Mirza Faisal Beg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminaGlaucomaMedicineOptical coherence tomographyOphthalmologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRCIS: Glaucoma was associated with axial bowing and rotation of Bruchs membrane opening (BMO) and anterior laminar insertion (ALI), skewed neural canal, and deeper anterior lamina cribrosa surface (ALCS). Longer axial length was associated with wider, longer, and more skewed neural canal and flatter ALCS. PURPOSE: Investigate the effects of myopia and glaucoma in the prelaminar neural canal and anterior lamina cribrosa using 1060-nm swept-source optical coherence tomography. PATIENTS: 19 control (38 eyes) and 38 glaucomatous subjects (63 eyes). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were imaged with swept-source optical coherence tomography, and the images were analyzed for the BMO and ALI dimensions, prelaminar neural canal dimensions, and ALCS depth. RESULTS: Glaucomatous eyes had more bowed and nasally rotated BMO and ALI, more horizontally skewed prelaminar neural canal, and deeper ALCS than the control eyes. Increased axial length was associated with a wider, longer, and more horizontally skewed neural canal and a decrease in the ALCS depth and curvature. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that glaucomatous posterior bowing or cupping of lamina cribrosa can be significantly confounded by the myopic expansion of the neural canal. This may be related to higher glaucoma risk associated with myopia from decreased compliance and increased susceptibility to IOP-related damage of LC being pulled taut.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207