Development of ocular hypertension secondary to tamponade with light versus heavy silicone oil: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The intraocular silicone oil (SO) tamponades used in the treatment of retinal detachment (RD) have been associated with a difference ocular hypertension (OH) rate. To clarify, if this complication was associated to use of standard SO (SSO) versus heavy SO (HSO), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative study between two kind of SO (standard or light vs. heavy) for the treatment of RD and macular hole, without restriction to study design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The methodological quality of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the criteria given in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention, while three non-RCTs were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklists. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The primary outcome was the rate of patients with OH treated with SSO compared to HSO. RESULTS: There were a higher number of rates of OH in HSO compared to SSO. This difference was statistically significant with the fixed effect model (Mantel-Haenszel RR; 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.28; P = 0.02) while there was not significative difference with the random effect model (Mantel-Haenszel RR; 1.51; 95% CI, 0.98-2.33; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: We noted a trend that points out a higher OH rate in HSO group compared to SSO, but this finding, due to the small size and variable design of studies, needs to be confirmed in well-designed and large size RCTs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it