Socioeconomic status and visual impairment and ocular disease in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a known social determinant of general health. The purpose of this review was to explore the association between SES and visual impairment and ocular disease in Canada. METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2024 for studies that explored the association between SES and visual impairment or ocular disease in Canadian patients. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. The review was registered in PROSPERO (registration number, CRD42024502490). RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included in the review. The included studies covered all provinces and territories and included patients of all ages. Fourteen of the included studies explored the relationship between SES and visual impairment. Eleven of the 14 studies found that patients of lower SES were more likely to have visual impairment, while 3 studies found no significant differences. Fourteen studies have explored the association between SES and various ocular diseases. Glaucoma, macular diseases, diabetic retinopathy, and idiopathic intracranial hypertension were all noted to be of higher prevalence in patients with lower income levels. Patients of lower SES were at the greatest risk of having more severe cataracts (p = 0.001). Among patients with diabetes, those in the lowest SES quintile were at an increased risk of ophthalmological complications compared to higher earners. CONCLUSIONS: SES is a determinant of ocular health in Canada. Higher rates of visual impairment and ocular diseases are associated with lower patient socioeconomic status. Efforts are required to mitigate this disparity and improve health equity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".