The use of the term “choked disc” in medical literature: a review of case reports and cross-sectional studies across specialties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The term "choked disc," was historically synonymous with papilledema, which indicates optic disc swelling due to increased intracranial pressure (ICP). Originally used to describe visible changes during ophthalmoscopic examinations in the late 19th century, its use has evolved. This review of literature aimed to investigate the contemporary application of "choked disc" across various medical disciplines, assess its diagnostic significance, and evaluate its consistency in usage METHODS: A comprehensive search of literature published from January 2000 to January 2024 was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. The review included peer-reviewed articles discussing "choked disc" in the context of case reports or observational studies. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing case reports, observational studies, and case series from diverse medical fields, such as neurosurgery, ophthalmology, and neurology. Our findings indicate that "choked disc" is predominantly used to indicate papilledema (72%), representing optic disc swelling associated with elevated ICP. However, the term was also applied to conditions like central vein retinal occlusion (4%), hypertensive retinopathy (4%), and other optic neuropathies (12%), reflecting a broader diagnostic usage. CONCLUSIONS: The term "choked disc" is most often used in the medical literature to refer to papilledema. However, it was also used to refer to other optic neuropathies or hypertensive retinopathy. We recommend the use of standardized terminology (e.g., papilledema) to ensure accurate diagnosis and enhance interprofessional communication, ultimately improving patient 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".