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
The rising global prevalence of myopia is a growing concern for clinicians, as it predisposes patients to severe ocular pathologies including glaucoma. High myopia can be associated with clinical features that resemble glaucomatous damage, which make an accurate glaucoma diagnosis challenging, particularly among patients with normal intraocular pressures. These patients may also present with established visual field defects which can mimic glaucoma, and standard imaging technology is less useful in disease detection and monitoring due to the lack of normative data for these anatomically unique eyes. Progression over time remains the most critical factor in facilitating the detection of early glaucomatous changes, and thus careful longitudinal follow-up of high-risk myopic patients is the most important aspect of management. Here, we review our current understanding of the complex relationship between myopia and glaucoma, and the diagnostic challenges and limitations of current testing protocols including visual field, intraocular pressure, and imaging. Furthermore, we discuss the clinical findings of two highly myopic patients with suspected 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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