Supplementary Material for: Ocular Abnormalities in Patients with Vitiligo: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vitiligo is a skin depigmentation disorder that results from the autoimmune destruction of cutaneous melanocytes. Several ocular abnormalities, including uveitis, dry eye, glaucoma, and retinal diseases, have been reported in patients with vitiligo. The aim of our study was to investigate the association of ocular abnormalities with vitiligo. Methods: This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021224167) and adhered to MOOSE checklist and PRISMA guidance for all processes. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies examining the association between ocular abnormalities and vitiligo from inception to December 10, 2020. Studies recruiting patients with Sjogren’s syndrome or Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome were excluded. The primary outcomes were the Schirmer test, tear film break-up time (TBUT), and ocular surface disease index (OSDI) of vitiligo patients compared to the controls. The risk of bias of the selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) of case-control studies. Results: This meta-analysis of 16 case-control studies showed that patients with vitiligo had significantly lower Schirmer test values (mean difference [MD], −1.65; 95% CI, −2.81 to −0.49), shorter TBUTs (MD, −4.66; 95% CI, −7.05 to −2.26), higher ocular surface disease indices (MD, 18.02; 95% CI, 5.7–30.35), and thinner subfoveal choroidal thicknesses (MD, −53.10; 95% CI, −69.84 to −36.36). No significant differences were found in the prevalence of glaucoma and the level of intraocular pressure. Conclusions: Our study supports an association between dry eye and thinner subfoveal choroidal thickness in patients with vitiligo. Dermatologists should be aware of these possible comorbidities and refer vitiligo patients with ocular symptoms to ophthalmologists for further management.
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 | 0.006 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.533 | 0.018 |
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".