MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394817868 · doi:10.1186/s12886-024-03443-4

Changes in corneal biomechanics in patients with glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4394817868 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Ophthalmology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaMeta-analysisIntraocular pressureOphthalmologyPublication biasBiomechanicsSubgroup analysisCorneaInternal medicinePhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 I 2 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.256 · 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