MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503789919 · doi:10.25011/cim.v31i6.4922

Krypton yellow laser for the treatment of macular hole in high myopia without retinal detachment

2008· article· en· W1503789919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ji-Ping Cai, Jin-Wei Cheng, Xiaoye Ma, Yuzhen Li, You Li, Rui-Li Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual acuityOphthalmologyMacular holeRetinal detachmentRetinalPlaceboVitrectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207