Glaucoma Severity and Participation in Diverse Social Roles: Does Visual Field Loss Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the association between glaucoma severity and participation in diverse social roles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals with glaucoma, 50+, with visual acuity in the better eye >20/50 were enrolled. They were classified into 3 groups based on visual field loss in the better eye: mild [mean deviation (MD)>-6 dB], moderate (MD, -6 to -12 dB), and severe (MD<-12 dB). The validated Social Role Participation Questionnaire assessed respondents' perceptions of the importance, difficulty, and satisfaction with participation in 11 social role domains (eg, community events, travel). Differences between groups were examined using multivariate linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 118 participants (52% female) were included: 60 mild, 29 moderate, and 29 severe. All social role domains were rated as important by all participants except for education and employment. Women (P<0.01), those with a partner (P<0.01), and those who were less depressed (P=0.03) reported higher scores of perceived importance of participating in social activities. Compared with those with mild glaucoma, individuals with severe glaucoma reported significantly more difficulty participating in community/religious/cultural events (P<0.01), travelling (P<0.01), and relationships with family members (P=0.01). They also reported less satisfaction with travelling (P=0.01) and social events (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in diverse social roles is valued by individuals with glaucoma. Severe visual field loss impedes involvement in and satisfaction with activities in community/religious/cultural events, travelling, and relationships with family members. Appropriate community and targeted interventions are needed to allow people with severe glaucoma to maintain active social participation-a key component to successful aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".