The Collaborative Ocular Tuberculosis Study (COTS) Consensus (CON) Group Meeting Proceedings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An international, expert led consensus initiative was set up by the Collaborative Ocular Tuberculosis Study (COTS) group to develop systematic, evidence, and experience-based recommendations for the treatment of ocular TB using a modified Delphi technique process. In the first round of Delphi, the group identified clinical scenarios pertinent to ocular TB based on five clinical phenotypes (anterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, choroiditis, retinal vasculitis, and panuveitis). Using an interactive online questionnaires, guided by background knowledge from published literature, 486 consensus statements for initiating ATT were generated and deliberated amongst 81 global uveitis experts. The median score of five was considered reaching consensus for initiating ATT. The median score of four was tabled for deliberation through Delphi round 2 in a face-to-face meeting. This report describes the methodology adopted and followed through the consensus process, which help elucidate the guidelines for initiating ATT in patients with choroidal TB.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".