MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Choroidal biomarkers in age-related macular degeneration

2024· review· en· W4403534071 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Sadeghi, Nicola Valsecchi, Elham Rahmanipour, Mahsa Ejlalidiz, Nasiq Hasan, Kiran Kumar Vupparaboina, Mohammed Nasar Ibrahim, Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Jiwon Baek, Danilo Iannetta, Jay Chhablani

Bibliographic record

VenueSurvey of Ophthalmology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacular degenerationMedicineOphthalmologyChoroidal neovascularizationOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of central visual impairment in the elderly. The exact pathophysiological mechanisms for AMD remain uncertain. Several studies suggest that choroidal abnormalities and alterations are critical in AMD progression. The transition from manual to automated segmentation and binarization techniques has resulted in accurate and precise measurements of different choroidal parameters. These qualitative and quantitative parameters, known as choroidal imaging biomarkers, have advanced from basic vertical subfoveal choroidal thickness to more intricate 3-dimensional choroidal reconstruction methods in the last decade. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of choroidal metrics may investigate valuable insights into AMD, potentially guiding the future development of customized therapeutic strategies and personalized patient care in AMD management. We describe the role of different choroidal biomarkers in evaluating patients with AMD and their contribution to management.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSurvey of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207