MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1121249753 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e3181e08109

Sterile Single Use Cover for the G-probe Transscleral Cyclodiode

2010· article· en· W1121249753 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel B. Rootman, David Howarth, Jonathan Kerr, John G. Flanagan, Graham E. Trope, Yvonne M. Buys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootplateCadaverMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207