Ophthalmological screening guidelines for individuals with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a connective tissue disorder in which the Type 1 collagen is defective. The eye is a structure rich in collagen Type 1 and is heavily impacted by the disease. Many vision-threatening eye diseases have been associated with OI. The onset of these diseases also tend to occur at an earlier age in individuals with OI. Despite the research on these risks, appropriate ophthalmological screening or care guidelines for individuals with OI remain unknown. As such, the purpose of this scoping review was to explore and describe existing ophthalmological screening and care guidelines to orient OI patient care. MAIN BODY: A scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology was conducted. A search of databases (PubMed and Medline) was completed in consultation with a research librarian. A total of 256 studies were imported for screening. Primary sources matching the inclusion and exclusion criteria were screened, extracted, and analyzed using Covidence. CONCLUSION: A total of 12 primary articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria, containing case reports, case series and cohort studies. Despite the risk of blindness associated with the consequences of OI on the eye, the primary literature fails to provide detailed screening and care guidelines aimed at identifying disease early. We provide general recommendations based on the review findings to guide the ophthalmological care of patients with OI and call upon the experts to convene globally to create screening guidelines. Further investigations of ophthalmological screening are warranted to limit these vision-threatening risks with early detection and treatment. Standardized ophthalmological screening guidelines for OI remain an area for research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".