MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415684774 · doi:10.3390/medicina61111943

Beyond Vision: Unveiling the Psychiatric Dimensions of Keratoconus

2025· review· en· W4415684774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teodor-Georgian Nuță, Mihnea Costin Manea, Corina Ioana Varlam, Gabriela Nuță, Aliss Mădălina Mareș, Floris Petru Iliuță

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)CasualAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderMajor depressive disorderComorbidityKeratoconusAutismObservational studySystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Keratoconus (KC) is a progressive corneal ectasia with multifactorial etiology, increasingly studied for potential associations with psychiatric disorders. This systematic review aimed to evaluate recent evidence linking KC with depression and other psychiatric conditions, including psychotic disorders, personality disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome (TS), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, ScienceDirect and SpringerLink were searched for English-language observational studies published since 2015 that examined psychiatric disorders in adults with keratoconus. We excluded reviews, case reports, pediatric, non-English, and inaccessible articles. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and JBI Checklist. Data were narratively summarized and tabulated—without meta-analysis due to heterogeneity. Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, including 41,906 KC patients and 63,267 controls. Eleven studies investigated depression and one ADHD. Findings on depression were mixed: five studies showed higher depressive symptoms among KC patients, while others found no significant association. Most were cross-sectional and of moderate-to-high quality. The single study on ADHD reported a higher prevalence of KC in males, but no evidence of casual association. Evidence on TS, ASD, and OCD was scarce and largely limited to case reports. The review was limited by heterogeneous methodologies, small sample sizes, an absence of longitudinal data, and reliance on self-report or registry data. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates increased psychological burden among some individuals with KC, particularly regarding depressive symptoms, yet casual relationships remain unproven. Male ADHD patients may have an elevated risk of KC, especially in the presence of eye rubbing. Registration: Not registered.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207