MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416063201 · doi:10.18502/jovr.v20.16803

Differential Diagnosis of Corneal Manifestations in Hypovitaminosis and Retinitis Pigmentosa

2025· article· en· W4416063201 on OpenAlexaff
Beatrice Cesaro, Chiara Ancona, Mariantonia Ferrara, Giuseppe Nascimbeni, Francesco Semeraro, Vito Romano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Research and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential diagnosisRetinitis pigmentosaBlindnessClinical diagnosisHypovitaminosisEye disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To report on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach in a patient with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), hypovitaminoses, and bilateral corneal involvement. Case Report: A 62-year-old woman, diagnosed with RP, presented with photophobia, sudden bilateral visual decline, and known long-term night blindness. Ophthalmic examination showed corneal perforation in the right eye, corneal ulcer in the left eye, and bilateral corneal hypoesthesia. She had undergone bariatric surgery and recently suspended vitamin supplementation. Blood tests revealed hypovitaminoses A, D, D3, and E. The patient underwent tectonic keratoplasty in the right eye and received topical therapy in the left eye, and then restarted vitamin supplementation as recommended by the nutritionist. Significant functional recovery was documented in both eyes at 1-, 3-, and 10-month follow-ups. Conclusion: The case highlights the importance of an integrative approach that includes comprehensive history taking, targeted laboratory work-up, as well as accurate differential diagnosis, especially given the potential multifactorality of ocular symptoms and signs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 venueJournal of Ophthalmic and Vision ResearchSame topicBiomedical Research and PathophysiologyFrench-language works237,207