Survey: Preferred practice patterns in the diagnosis of mucous membrane pemphigoid amongst cornea specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeTo evaluate preferred diagnostic tools and treatment decision-making factors in cases suspicious of mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) amongst ophthalmologists and cornea specialists.MethodsWeb-based survey, consisting of 14 multiple choice questions, posted to the Cornea Society Listserv Keranet, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society Cornea Listserv, and the Bowman Club Listserv.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-eight ophthalmologists participated in the survey. Eighty-six percent (86%) of respondents were cornea trained and practiced in either North America or Europe (83%). Most respondents (72%) routinely perform conjunctival biopsies for all suspicious cases of MMP. For those who do not, fear that biopsy will exacerbate inflammation was the most common reason to defer investigation (47%). Seventy-one percent (71%) performed biopsies from perilesional sites. Ninety-seven percent (97%) ask for direct (DIF) studies and 60% for histopathology in formalin. Most do not recommend biopsy at other non-ocular sites (75%), nor do they perform indirect immunofluorescence for serum autoantibodies (68%). Immune-modulatory therapy is started following positive biopsy results for most (66%), albeit most (62%) would not let a negative DIF influence the choice of starting treatment should there be clinical suspicion of MMP. Differences in practice patterns as they relate to level of experience and geographical location are contrasted to the most up-to-date available guidelines.ConclusionResponses to the survey suggest that there is heterogeneity in certain practice patterns for MMP. Biopsy remains an area of controversy in dictating treatment plans. Identified areas of need should be targeted in future research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".