MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405384643 · doi:10.2147/opth.s488559

Characterizing Patient Perceptions of Living with Geographic Atrophy: The Global Geographic Atrophy Insights Survey

2024· article· en· W4405384643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sophie J. Bakri, Christian Brinkmann, Amy Mulvey, Kathy Steinberg, Pooja Vatsyayan, Sujata P. Sarda, Nancy M. Holekamp

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenentechAllerganApellis PharmaceuticalsRegeneron PharmaceuticalsBiogenMedpaceBrightFocus Foundation
KeywordsGeographic atrophyMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)AtrophyDemographyPerceptionGerontologyMacular degenerationAudiologyOphthalmologyPathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Geographic atrophy (GA) is an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration leading to irreversible vision loss and negative impacts on quality of life. Methods: To assess the experiences of living with GA, the Geographic Atrophy Insights Survey (GAINS) was conducted between October 12, 2021, and December 10, 2021, captured the responses of individuals ≥60 years with a self-reported GA diagnosis residing in the United States, Canada, Australia, and six European countries. Survey questions focused on the perceptions of individuals living with GA and covered six themes: speed of disease progression, effect on independence, impact on quality of life, emotional toll of GA, misconceptions and need for further education about GA, and clinician interactions. An exploratory comparison between participants with unilateral and bilateral GA was conducted. Results: The survey included 203 individuals with a mean age of 70 years; 42% had bilateral GA. Most respondents (77%) agreed ("strongly" or "somewhat agreed") that GA impacted their vision faster than expected, and 68% agreed that it is hard to enjoy life fully the way they did before GA diagnosis. Regarding comparisons between individuals with bilateral and unilateral GA, both groups reported similar "major" or "moderate" negative impacts on their ability to drive (73% vs 75%, respectively), followed by the ability to read (66% vs 71%), and ability to travel as much as they would prefer (62% vs 62%). Among participants, 49% and 56% of respondents with bilateral and unilateral GA, respectively, reported major/moderate negative impacts on self-confidence and 40% of both cohorts reported major/moderate negative impacts on mental health. Conclusion: Our survey provides further insight on the burden experienced by individuals living with GA. We find similar responses between unilateral and bilateral GA groups, highlighting the impact GA may have on an individual's quality of life even when only one eye is affected.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207