Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy that affects more than 400 000 Canadians and up to 111 million are expected to be afflicted with the disease worldwide by 2040. Despite trends toward increasing utility of laser and surgical interventions for glaucoma treatment, topical medications remain a mainstay of treatment. These medications often comprise the initial treatment alongside selective laser trabeculoplasty (in open angle subtypes). Additionally, given the progressive nature of glaucoma, many patients who undergo laser or surgery treatments may eventually require the use of topical medications. Although glaucoma drops are generally accepted as safe and low risk for patients, each type carries its own side effect profiles and contraindications. No glaucoma drop is completely benign and can significantly affect patient wellbeing if not selected correctly. Therefore, it is important for ophthalmologists and eye care professionals, who will undoubtedly have numerous glaucoma patients in their care, to be aware of common side effects and contraindications associated with ocular anti-hypertensive agents. This article will outline the side effects and contraindications of the ocular anti-hypertensive agents currently available in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".