Sterile Single Use Cover for the G-probe Transscleral Cyclodiode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiuse of the G-probe transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (TSCPC) device can lead to contamination. We evaluated the mechanical stability and clinical efficacy of a disposable sterile barrier for the G-probe footplate. METHODS: We measured diode laser output with and without the G-probe barrier both before and after cadaver TSCPC (18 shots at 2000 mW for 2000mS). Qualitative analyses of the laser aiming beam were made before each trial in the barrier and nonbarrier state. After each trial, the G-probe barrier was examined for microperforations and footplate for debris and/or damage. Microbiology was taken on the cadaver eye and the G-probe before and after 20 cycles. Histologic analysis after TSCPC with and without barrier was carried out on a cadaver eye. RESULTS: Qualitatively, laser focus dispersion was minimized by the G-probe cover. Mean (95% CI) laser output was measured for the nonbarrier, with barrier pre-TSCPC and with barrier post-TSCPC, respectively as 980 mW (899,1061), 1247 mW (1115, 1378), and 1240 mW (1132, 1347). The difference between the nonbarrier and barrier both preTSCPC and postTSCPC was statistically significant (df=2, F=36.26, P<0.01). No perforations in the G-probe barrier were evident and no debris or damage was detected on the G-probe. Pathology was consistent with earlier reports of TSCPC in cadaver eyes. Microbial segregation of the cadaver eye and the G-probe footplate was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: The G-probe barrier is an effective and robust method to protect consecutive patients from contamination during TSCPC. Although energy levels were slightly higher in probes with barrier, histologic differences were not evident and the clinical significance of this finding is likely limited.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".