The Relationship between Ischemic Optic Neuropathy and Internal Carotid Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To evaluate and review the current evidence regarding the association between ischemic optic neuropathy (ION) and internal carotid artery dissection (ICAD). Methods: We systematically reviewed studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA), searching three databases (Scopus, Pubmed, and Embase) for relevant articles that clearly described the correlation between ION and ICAD. All studies that examined the association between ICAD and the development of ION were synthesized. Quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports and Case Series were conducted. Results: Our search yielded 198 manuscripts published in the English language. Following study screening, fourteen studies were selected. The number of participants with ION following ICAD ranged from one to four, with sixteen patients experiencing either anterior ION, posterior ION, or a combination of both. The anterior or posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AION and PION) patients’ ages were 48.75 ± 11.75 and 49.62 ± 12.85, respectively. Fourteen out of sixteen patients experienced spontaneous ICAD, whereas the traumatic etiology was ascertained in two patients. Conclusions: Hence, albeit rare, ophthalmologists should consider ICAD a potential cause of ION, especially in young adults with concomitant cephalic pain and vision reduction.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| 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".