Indigenous Eye Health in the Americas: The Burden of Vision Impairment and Ocular Diseases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review of the burden of vision impairment and blindness and ocular disease occurrence in Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. We systematically reviewed findings of the frequency of vision impairment and blindness and/or frequency of ocular findings in Indigenous groups. The database search yielded 2829 citations, of which 2747 were excluded. We screened the full texts of 82 records for relevance and excluded 16. The remaining 66 articles were examined thoroughly, and 25 presented sufficient data to be included. Another 7 articles derived from references were included, summing a total of 32 studies selected. When considering adults over 40 years old, the highest frequencies of vision impairment and blindness in Indigenous Peoples varied from 11.1% in high-income North America to 28.5% in tropical Latin America, whose rates are considerably higher than those in the general population. Most of the ocular diseases reported were preventable and/or treatable, so blindness prevention programs should focus on accessibility to eye examinations, cataract surgeries, control of infectious diseases, and spectacles distribution. Finally, we recommend actions in six areas of attention towards improving the eye health in Indigenous Peoples: access and integration of eye services with primary care; telemedicine; customized propaedeutics; education on eye health; and quality of data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it