MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320033169 · doi:10.1007/s11845-023-03306-9

The impact of COVID-19 on managing ophthalmic diseases: an international, descriptive study

2023· article· en· W4320033169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ethan Waisberg, Joshua Ong, Nasif Zaman, Sharif Amit Kamran, Alireza Tavakkoli, Andrew G. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Optic Conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity College DublinIrish Research eLibrary
KeywordsPandemicMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseFamily medicineCompliance (psychology)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDescriptive statisticsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)OptometryInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more severe cases of eye disease, decreased medication compliance/availability, and decreased treatment volume due to the lockdown. AIMS: We aim to quantify and bring together a variety of international perspectives from ophthalmologists of different subspecialties to characterize the global impact of COVID-19 on managing various ophthalmic disease. METHODS: An online survey of 10 questions was conducted among ophthalmologists using a specialized survey program. RESULTS: Fifty-two ophthalmologists were successfully contacted. Survey respondents include ophthalmologists from USA, Canada, Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand. Based on the results of our survey, 1 year after the pandemic, ophthalmic disease severity has worsened as well as a decrease in examination and medication compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists across the world have reported a general increase in disease severity and decrease in medication and examination compliance 1 year after the beginning of COVID-19.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)Same topicRetinal and Optic ConditionsFrench-language works237,207