MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394690477 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002399

Understanding Patterns of Preserved Retinal Ganglion Cell Layer in Advanced Glaucoma as Seen With Optical Coherence Tomography

2024· article· en· W4394690477 on OpenAlexaff
Anna J. Sun, Gabriel Gomide, Emmanouil Tsamis, Grace Mao, Ari Leshno, Sol La Bruna, Jeffrey M. Liebmann, Carlos Gustavo De Moraes, Donald C. Hood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsGlaucomaMedicineOphthalmologyRetinalRetinaOptometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRÉCIS: Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), eyes with advanced glaucoma were found to have a wide range of patterns of damage that were consistent with the natural history of progression based on a model of macular progression. PURPOSE: To understand the patterns of preserved retinal ganglion cells in eyes with advanced glaucoma using OCT and a model of progression of the central macula. METHODS: OCT GCL thickness was measured in 94 eyes with advanced glaucoma, defined as glaucomatous eyes with a 24-2 MD (mean deviation) worse than -12 dB. A commercial report supplied the GCL thickness in 6 sectors of the thick, donut-shaped GCL region around the fovea. For each eye, the 6 sectors were coded as green (within normal limits, WNL), yellow (≤5th, ≥1st percentile), or red (<1st percentile). RESULTS: In all 94 eyes, one or more of the 6 sectors of the donut were abnormal (red or yellow), while all 6 sectors were red in 52 (55%) of the eyes. On the other hand, 33 eyes had one or more sectors WNL (green). While the pattern of donut damage varied widely across these 33 eyes, 61 of the 66 hemiretinas were consistent with a temporal-to-nasal progression of damage within each hemiretina as predicted by our model. CONCLUSIONS: All eyes with advanced glaucoma had damage to the critically important central, donut-shaped GCL region. This region showed a wide range of patterns of damage, but these patterns were consistent with the natural history of progression based on a model of macular progression. These results have implications for the clinical identification of macular progression, as well as for inclusion criteria for clinical trials seeking to preserve central macular function.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207