Changes in corneal biomechanics in patients with glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Corneal biomechanics has been implicated in a variety of ocular diseases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the glaucoma and corneal biomechanical properties, and exploring the value of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and follow-up of glaucoma diseases. Methods We searched studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov., as of October 8, 2022. Only English studies were included, without publication time limit. We also searched the reference lists of published reviews. This meta-analysis was conducted with random-effects models, we used mean difference(MD) to evaluate the outcome, and the heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed under the appearance of high heterogeneity. We used 11 items to describe the characteristics of included studies, publication bias was performed through the Egger’s test. The quality assessment were evaluated by Newcastle–Ottawa Scale(NOS) items. Results A total of 27 eligible studies were identified for data synthesis and assessment. The result of meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of included indicators, the corneal biomechanics values of glaucoma patients were statistically lower than those of normal subjects in a similar age range. The covered indicators included central corneal thickness(CCT) (MD = -8.34, 95% CI: [-11.74, -4.94]; P < 0.001), corneal hysteresis(CH)(MD = -1.54, 95% CI: [-1.88, -1.20]; P < 0.001), corneal resistance factor(CRF)( MD = -0.82, 95% CI: [-1.21, -0.44]; P < 0.001), and intraocular pressure(IOP)( corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc): MD = 2.45, 95% CI: [1.51, 3.38]; P < 0.001); Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg): MD = 1.30, 95% CI: [0.41, 2.20]; P = 0.004), they all showed statistical difference. While the value of axial length(AL) did not show statistically different(MD = 0.13, 95% CI: [-0.24, 0.50]; P = 0.48). Conclusion Corneal biomechanics are associated with glaucoma. The findings can be useful for the design of glaucoma screening, treatment and prognosis.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".