MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402406644 · doi:10.1136/pn-2024-004255

Post-radiation optic neuropathy

2024· article· en· W4402406644 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Margolin, Armin Handzic

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOptic neuropathyRadiation therapyOptic nerveSurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A middle-aged man developed subacute painless visual loss in the left eye leading to no light perception, and 2 weeks later developed subacute visual loss in the right eye to no light perception. He had a history of resected pituitary macroadenoma. MR scan of brain and orbits with contrast showed short prechiasmatic segments of enhancement in each optic nerve. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis was normal. Extensive diagnostic work-up was unrevealing but review of medical records identified a history of prophylactic radiotherapy to the pituitary gland following pituitary macroadenoma resection 1.5 years before. We diagnosed post-radiation optic neuropathy. This condition typically occurs 1-1.5 years after the radiotherapy given near the visual pathway. Its pathophysiology presumably relates to an endotheliopathy of the vasa nervosum supplying the optic nerve due to free radical accumulation following radiotherapy. It manifests with unilateral or bilateral sequential severe visual loss with imaging showing characteristic enhancement of the short segment of the affected intracranial optic nerve. There is no available definitive treatment, but hyperbaric oxygen therapy, given shortly after onset of visual loss, is a promising treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designCase report
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 venuePractical NeurologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207