MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315620032 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000001128

Optic neuritis: current challenges in diagnosis and management

2022· review· en· W4315620032 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Bénard-Séguin, Fiona Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptic neuritisMedicineCurrent (fluid)Intensive care medicineMultiple sclerosisPsychiatryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The primary aim of this review is to describe the clinical course, salient imaging features, and relevant serological profiles of common optic neuritis (ON) subtypes. Key diagnostic challenges and treatment options will also be discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: ON is a broad term that describes an inflammatory optic nerve injury arising from a variety of potential causes. ON can occur sporadically, however there is particular concern for co-associated central nervous system (CNS) inflammatory syndromes including multiple sclerosis (MS), neuromyelitis optic spectrum disorders (NMOSD), and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease (MOGAD). The ON subtypes that often herald MS, NMOSD, and MOGAD differ with respect to serological antibody profile and neuroimaging characteristics, yet there is significant overlap in their clinical presentations. A discerning history and thorough examination are critical to rendering the correct diagnosis. SUMMARY: Optic neuritis subtypes vary with respect to their long-term prognosis and accordingly, require different acute treatment strategies. Moreover, delays in identifying MOGAD, and certainly NMOSD, can be highly detrimental because affected individuals are vulnerable to permanent vision loss and neurologic disability from relapses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.434
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207