Role of excessive weight in intraocular pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse the effect of excess body weight on intraocular pressure (IOP) values. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A literature search from PubMed, Medline and ScienceDirect Databases on 18 May 2023 was conducted by three reviewers, then filtered each study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the quality assessment of included studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was adapted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.4 by entering the IOP values of each group to measure the mean difference. RESULTS: From 2656 studies, there were 9 studies that matched the criteria and then were included to perform a quantitative meta-analysis. The results showed a mean difference of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.18) of the excessive weight group against the normal weight group. This suggests that there is a significant relationship between excess body weight and increasing values of IOP. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that excessive body weight tends to lead to higher IOP, which means that high IOP becomes a major risk factor for 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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