Use of Diuretics and Risk of Acute Angle Closure: A Case-Control Study
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
Purpose To examine the possible link between acute angle closure (AAC) with use of diuretics.Methods A nested case-control study (NCC) was conducted among a cohort of diuretic users using the PharMetrics Plus database from 2006 to 2020. Cases were identified as the first international classification of diseases 9th and 10th editions (ICD-9/10) code for ACC. For each case, 4 controls were selected and matched to the cases by age and sex using density-based sampling. A conditional logistic regression model was used to compute rate ratios (RRs) adjusted for the drugs topiramate, bupropion, sulphonamide antibiotics, acetazolamide, and sulfasalazine. The RRs for a negative control drug, amlodipine, was also assessed.Results From the initial cohort of 713 574 diuretics users, 1 553 cases and 6 212 controls were identified. No increase in the risk of AAC with current users of diuretics was found (RR = 1.06, (95% CI: 0.81–1.37) for all diuretics; RR = 0.97, (95% CI: 0.71–1.32) for thiazides; RR = 1.24, (95% CI: 0.90–1.73) for loop diuretics; RR = 0.99, (95% CI: 0.73–1.36) for potassium sparing).Conclusion We found no increase in the risk of acute angle closure with use of diuretics. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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