Genetic changes and testing associated with childhood glaucoma: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many forms of childhood glaucoma have been associated with underlying genetic changes, and variants in many genes have been described. Currently, testing is variable as there are no widely accepted guidelines for testing. This systematic review aimed to summarize the literature describing genetic changes and testing practices in childhood glaucoma. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered with Prospero (ID CRD42023400467). A comprehensive review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through March 2, 2023 using the search terms: (glaucoma) AND (pediatric OR childhood OR congenital OR child OR infant OR infantile) AND (gene OR genetic OR genotype OR locus OR genomic OR mutation OR variant OR test OR screen OR panel). Information was extracted regarding genetic variants including genotype-phenotype correlation. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of 1,916 records screened, 196 studies met inclusion criteria and 53 genes were discussed. Among study populations, mean age±SD at glaucoma diagnosis was 8.94±9.54 years and 50.4% were male. The most common gene discussed was CYP1B1, evaluated in 109 (55.6%) studies. CYP1B1 variants were associated with region and population-specific prevalence ranging from 5% to 86% among those with primary congenital glaucoma. MYOC variants were discussed in 31 (15.8%) studies with prevalence up to 36% among patients with juvenile open angle glaucoma. FOXC1 variants were discussed in 25 (12.8%) studies, which demonstrated phenotypic severity dependent on degree of gene expression and type of mutation. Overall risk of bias was low; the most common domains of bias were selection and comparability. Numerous genes and genetic changes have been associated with childhood glaucoma. Understanding the most common genes as well as potential genotype-phenotype correlation has the potential to improve diagnostic and prognostic outcomes for children with 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".