MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400785748 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2024.100576

The Association between the Pulsatile Choroidal Volume Change and Ocular Rigidity

2024· article· en· W4400785748 on OpenAlexafffund
Diane N. Sayah, Denise Descovich, Santiago Costantino, Mark R. Lesk

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Space AgencyUniversité de MontréalGlaucoma Research Society of CanadaGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyIntraocular pressurePulsatile flowGlaucomaRetinalOptical coherence tomographyProspective cohort studyCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To assess the relationship between the pulsatile choroidal volume change (DV) and ocular rigidity (OR), an important biomechanical property of the eye.Design: This is a prospective cross-sectional study.Subjects: Two hundred seventeen participants (235 eyes) were included in this study.Of those, 18 eyes (18 participants) had exudative retinal disease, and 217 eyes (199 participants) had open-angle glaucoma (39.2%), suspect discs (12.4%), ocular hypertension (14.3%), or healthy eyes (34.1%).Methods: Pulsatile choroidal volume change was measured using dynamic OCT, which detects the change in choroidal thickness during the cardiac cycle.Ocular rigidity was measured using an invasive procedure as well as using a validated optical method.Correlations between DV and OR were assessed in subjects with healthy eyes, eyes with glaucoma, or eyes with exudative retinal disease.Main Outcome Measures: Ocular rigidity and pulsatile ocular volume change.Results: In 18 eyes where OR was obtained invasively and DV was obtained noninvasively, a significant correlation was found between DV and OR (r s ¼ À0.664, P ¼ 0.003).Similarly, a strong inverse correlation was found between the noninvasive measurements of both DV and OR (r s ¼ À0.748, P < 0.001) in a large cohort and maintained its significance across diagnostic groups (a more compliant eye is associated with greater DV).No correlation was found between DV and age, blood pressure, intraocular pressure, axial length, or diagnosis (P !0.05).Mean DV was 7.3 Æ 3.4 mL for all groups combined with a range of 3.0 to 20.8 mL.Conclusions: These results suggest an association between the biomechanics of the corneoscleral shell and pulsatile ocular blood flow, which may indicate that a more rigid eye exerts more resistance to pulsatile choroidal expansion.This highlights the dynamic nature of both blood flow and biomechanics in the eye, as well as how they may interact, leading to a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of ocular disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207