Systematic review of the association between Alzheimer’s disease and chronic glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexandros G Tsilis,1 Konstantinos K Tsilidis,2 Sygkliti-Henrietta Pelidou,3 George Kitsos11Department of Ophthalmology, 2Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, 3Department of Neurology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, GreeceAbstract: A potential association between Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and chronic glaucoma has been suggested but results of epidemiological studies have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of this literature. We searched systematically in PubMed from December 1964 to September 2013 and identified 239 articles potentially relevant for abstract and full-text review. Statistical heterogeneity (variability) across studies was evaluated using the Cochran Q test and the I2 statistic, and the Newcastle-Ottawa score was used to assess study quality. Ten studies were finally selected. Compared to non-demented participants, patients with AD had a statistically significant decreased risk of glaucoma but the results were very heterogeneous, and thus summary estimates were not reported (I2, 89%; Pheterogeneity, <0.001). The study results ranged from large positive relative risks identified in small and poorly-conducted studies to weak inverse associations or null estimates observed in some cohort and record-linkage studies, but the summary estimates were essentially driven by a large retrospective cohort using medical claims that may be afflicted by underdiagnosis bias. There was also evidence for substantial publication bias (Egger’s P≤0.01). The association of AD and glaucoma is heterogeneous and most studies are small and inadequately designed. Large prospective studies with long follow-ups are warranted to clarify this association.Keywords: systematic review, Alzheimer disease, neurodegenerative diseases, glaucomaA Letter to the Editor has been received and published for this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".