MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of vernal keratoconjunctivitis: Navigating a changing treatment landscape

2023· review· en· W4387996274 on OpenAlexaff
Asim Ali, Leonard Bielory, Stephanie A. Dotchin, Patrick Hamel, Yi Ning J. Strube, Euna Koo

Bibliographic record

VenueSurvey of Ophthalmology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationKingston Health Sciences CentreHospital for Sick Children
FundersSanten
KeywordsVernal keratoconjunctivitisMedicineImmunopathologyDiseaseKeratoconjunctivitisAllergyDermatologyAllergic conjunctivitisImmunologyEye diseasePathologyOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, progressive, and potentially sight-threatening form of ocular inflammatory disease that primarily affects children and young adults. Prevalence varies by region, ranging from <2 per 10,000 in the United States to as high as 1,100 per 10,000 in parts of Africa. The rarity of VKC in developed countries can make differential diagnosis challenging, and treatment is often delayed until the disease is advanced, and symptoms are significantly impacting patients' quality of life. Although once viewed primarily as an immunoglobulin E-mediated condition, approximately 50% of patients with VKC do not exhibit allergic sensitization. It is now recognized that the immunopathology of VKC involves multiple inflammatory pathways that lead to the signs, symptoms, and conjunctival eosinophilic and fibroproliferative lesions that are a hallmark of the disease. We examine the evolution of our understanding of the immunopathology of VKC, the expanding VKC treatment armamentarium, the clinical implications of emerging treatment approaches, and future directions for VKC research and practice.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurvey of OphthalmologySame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207