MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401942124 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002489

Bilateral Normal Tension Glaucoma in a Healthy Child Without Myopia

2024· article· en· W4401942124 on OpenAlexaff
Dong Han, Eun Ji Lee, Tae‐Woo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryMedicineFamily medicineInstitutional review boardLibrary scienceOptometryOphthalmologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea Funding This work was supported by the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund (grant number: 02-2017-0037) and a grant of Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant numbers: HI19C0481, HC19C0276). The funders had no role in the design or conduct of this research. Availability of data and material Not applicable. Code availability Not applicable Authors' contributions Dong Kyun Han: manuscript preparation; Eun Ji Lee: concepts, design, manuscript editing, and manuscript review; Tae-Woo Kim: manuscript review. Ethics approval This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB No. B-2305-830-701) Consent to participate Not applicable. Conflicts of interests None of the authors have proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article. Reprints: Eun Ji Lee, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital 82, Gumi-ro 173 beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Tel: 82-31-787-7378, Fax: 82-31-787-4057 (e-mail: [email protected]).

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207