Krypton yellow laser for the treatment of macular hole in high myopia without retinal detachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prophylactic effect of krypton yellow laser for the treatment of macular holes in high myopic eyes in order to reduce the risk of retinal detachment. METHODS: Twenty-seven eyes of 27 patients with high myopia and macular holes were randomly assigned to two groups. Fifteen patients (group A, 15 eyes) were subject to laser photocoagulation around the hole margin along with an oral placebo (vitamin B1), while 12 patients (group B, 12 eyes) were only given the oral placebo (vitamin B1). The incident rate of retinal detachment due to macular hole and the mean best-corrected visual acuity of the two groups before and after treatment were measured. The data were statistically tested by X2 test and Student's t test. RESULTS: The incident rates of retina1 detachment in group A and group B were 20%(3/15) and 58.3%(7/12), respectively (X2=4.201, P0.05). The mean BCVA of group B on the initial examination was 24/200, while the mean BCVA at the final follow-up was 30/200 (P>0.05). No significant difference in initial visual acuity (P>0.05) or final visual acuity (P>0.05) was found between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Krypton yellow laser photocoagulation could reduce the incidence of retinal detachment due to a macular hole in high myopia with acceptable functional results in this study.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".