MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Familial occurrence of artefactual ocular hypertension from thick corneas and of primary open angle glaucoma in a French Canadian kindred

2000· article· en· W6921921025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucomaOcular hypertensionOptic nerveOpen angle glaucomaDrusenIntraocular pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the coexistence of artefactual ocular hypertension due to increased central corneal thickness (CCT>585 microm), with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in a French Canadian kindred. Seventeen members of the family were examined and classified as to their glaucoma status. The mean CCT for our glaucoma patients (580 microm; n=5) and that for normals (552 microm; n=6) were within two standard deviations of the mean value provided in the literature (531 microm +/- SD=29 microm). The mean CCT of 611 microm for the suspect group (n=6) was considerably higher than for the glaucoma and normal groups. All but one of the suspects were classified as ocular hypertensives on the basis of high intraocular pressures (IOPs). When the IOPs for these patients (mean 22.6 mmHg) were corrected for their CCTs, all had pressures of(mean 16.4 mmHg). Ten of the seventeen family members had thick CCTs, and transmission of thick corneas was seen in two generations. A number of individuals in this family had optic nerve head drusen (9/17) and the mean CCT of these individuals (601 microm) was higher than the mean CCT (560 microm) of the group without drusen (P=0.020 by t test). Artefactual ocular hypertension and POAG can be present in different members of the same family. The presence of a thick cornea appears to be an inherited trait and may be associated with the presence of optic nerve drusen. This association suggests a developmental relationship between thick corneas and optic nerve head drusen which needs to be studied further.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University)Same topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207