O'Connor Davies's Ophthalmic Drugs: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Uses. 4th ed. GrahamHopkins, RichardPearson. Boston: Butterworth‐Heinemann. 1998. Pages: 258. Price: $60.00. ISBN 0‐7506‐2966‐5.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O'Connor Davies's Ophthalmic Drugs: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Uses. 4th ed. Graham Hopkins, Richard Pearson. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 1998. Pages: 258. Price: $60.00. ISBN 0-7506-2966-5. The authors, Graham Hopkins and Richard Pearson, have produced a well-written book. The strong point of the book is its excellent summary paragraphs and relevant clinical data pertaining to the selection and use of ocular diagnostic and therapeutic drugs. Detailed information is not presented on the pharmacological mechanisms governing the action of the drugs described in this book. However, for the optometric practitioner who has previously covered and understands such information, this deficiency will not significantly affect the overall usefulness of the book. The addition of a few well-planned schematic diagrams would help the optometrist to grasp the complex information presented in many of the introductory paragraphs. We have few style criticisms, except that current pharmacological nomenclature uses the term adrenoceptor rather than adrenergic receptor and the term nuclear chain used in the antiviral section is vague. The chapters describing antimicrobials, ophthalmic dosage forms, drug selection and mydriatics, miotics, and cycloplegics are all presented and summarized very well. The anti-inflammatory section is fairly weak; we suggest that a stand-alone chapter dealing with this topic be added. The chapter on antiglaucoma medications is well written, although additional information could be added concerning the newest class of drugs, the prostanoids. Overall, we recommend this book for the optometrist who requires a practical, well-written summary detailing the selection and clinical uses of current ocular diagnostic and therapeutic pharmacological agents. We caution against this book as a reference for detailed information describing the pharmacological mechanisms of ocular DPA and TPA action.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".