Glaucoma Severity Stage at First Visit at a University Eye Clinic in Congo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRÉCIS: Initial presentation of glaucoma at a major eye clinic mostly features advanced disease with a high proportion of blindness. This is likely a microcosm of a nationwide issue requiring concerted strategies to detect glaucoma early. PURPOSE: To characterize the severity stage of new glaucoma patients in Congolese attending a university eye clinic. METHODS: New glaucoma patients (n=118) were labeled as early or late presenters based on visual field sensitivity in the worse eye. RESULTS: Mean age was 58.9±15.7 years, 51.7% were males. Overall, the worse eye had advanced, whereas the better eye had moderate glaucoma, with an asymmetry of -7.4 dB ( P <0.001). Blindness was present in 30.5% of worse and 5.1% of better eyes. Seventy-two patients (61.0%) were late presenters. Visual acuity was lower ( P <0.001), intraocular pressure (IOP) higher ( P =0.02), cup-to-disc ratio larger ( P =0.011), and retinal nerve fiber layer thinner ( P =0.001) in late presenters' worse than better eye. The worse and better eyes of late presenters had advanced glaucoma, with a -9.6 dB interocular asymmetry ( P <0.001); 40.3% and 8.3% were blind, respectively. In early presenters, the worse and better eyes had moderate and early disease, respectively; the asymmetry was -3.2 dB ( P <0.001), and 15.2% were blind. Overall, 58.5% and 65.3% presented with advanced disease in the worse eye based on visual field and cup-to-disc ratio criteria of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society staging scale, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most new glaucoma patients had bilateral advanced but asymmetric disease. These findings call for the establishment of community-based measures for early detection of glaucoma and a referral network system connecting community healthcare to tertiary eye clinics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".