MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407673618 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2025.25

Central Retinal Artery Occlusion at a Canadian Academic Center

2025· article· en· W4407673618 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew P. Quinn, Victoria Liu, Danah Albreiki, Daniel Lelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Optic Conditions
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral retinal artery occlusionOptometryOcclusionRetinalOphthalmologyMedicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) is a retinal stroke with poor visual prognosis and frequent association with life-threatening conditions. Clinical guidelines and treatment options are in evolution, and Canadian data regarding CRAO are limited. METHODS: Patients with CRAO between June 1, 2019, and May 31, 2023, were included. The medical chart was reviewed for demographics, presentation factors, investigations, interventions, secondary prevention referrals and outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included. Median age was 68.1 (61.4-81.8) years, and 60.5% were male. The site of presentation was an emergency department in 61.8%. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from vision loss to presentation was 15.0 (3.5-48.0) hours; 28.9% presented within 4.5 hours. The median (IQR) time for ophthalmological consultation was 12.0 (4.6-22.6) hours. No patient was treated with thrombolysis. Referral for neurovascular secondary prevention occurred for 92.1%; however, referral for ocular follow-up was omitted in 21.1%. Among patients with non-arteritic CRAO, 25.7% had symptomatic carotid stenosis, and 10.5% had a cardioembolic source. Giant cell arteritis was diagnosed in 8.1% of patients over age 50. Functional visual recovery occurred for 10.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, patients often presented within hours of CRAO and usually to an emergency department; however, no patient was treated with thrombolysis. As in other centers, delay in ophthalmological consultation and the lack of a defined CRAO treatment pathway are barriers. Patients with CRAO frequently have high-risk underlying pathology and generally do not experience meaningful improvement in vision. There is an unmet need for Canadian guidelines to standardize multidisciplinary care for CRAO.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicRetinal and Optic Conditions→French-language works237,207→