Age, gender, biometry, refractive error, and the anterior chamber angle among Alaskan Eskimos.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of angle-closure glaucoma (ACG) is greater for Eskimos/Inuit than it is for any other ethnic group in the world. Although it has been suggested that this prevalence may be due to a population tendency toward shallower anterior chamber angles, available evidence for other populations such as Chinese with high rates of ACG has not consistently demonstrated such a tendency. METHODS: A reticule, slit-lamp, and standard Goldmann one-mirror goniolens were used to make measurements in the anterior chamber (AC) angle according to a previously reported protocol for biometric gonioscopy (BG) (Ophthalmology 1999;106:2161-7). Measurements were made in all four quadrants of one eye among 133 phakic Alaskan Eskimos aged 40 years and older. Automatic refraction, dilated examination of the anterior segment and optic nerve, and A-scan measurements of AC depth, lens thickness, and axial length were also carried out for all subjects. RESULTS: Both central and peripheral AC measurements for the Eskimo subjects were significantly lower than those previously reported by us for Chinese, blacks, and whites under the identical protocol. Eskimos also seemed to have somewhat more hyperopia. There were no differences in biometric measurements between men and women in this Eskimo population. Angle measurements by BG seemed to decline more rapidly over life among Eskimos and Chinese than blacks or whites. Although there was a significant apparent decrease in AC depth, increase in lens thickness, and increase in hyperopia with age among Eskimos, all of these trends seemed to reverse in the seventh decade and beyond. CONCLUSIONS: Eskimos do seem to have shallower ACs than do other racial groups. Measurements of the AC angle seem to decline more rapidly over life among Eskimos than among blacks or whites, a phenomenon also observed by us among Chinese, another group with high ACG prevalence. This apparent more rapid decline may be due to a cohort effect with higher prevalence of myopia and resulting wider angles among younger Eskimos and Chinese.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".