Retinal detachment postphacoemulsification in Bichon Frises: a retrospective study of 54 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of retinal detachment (RD) postphacoemulsification in American Bichon Frises with and without prophylactic retinopexy. PROCEDURES: Medical records of 54 Bichon Frises undergoing phacoemulsification with or without prophylactic retinopexy between 2003 and 2013 in one or both eyes were reviewed from five Midwestern university veterinary teaching hospitals. Inclusion criteria were preoperative ERG, at least 6 months of follow-up postphacoemulsification, and the absence of preexisting RD as determined by ophthalmic examination and/or ultrasound. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-squared test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Wilson confidence intervals with the P-value <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Phacoemulsification was performed without retinopexy in 79 eyes (42 dogs, non-PR group) and with prophylactic retinopexy in 23 eyes (12 dogs, PR group). Incidence of diabetes mellitus was 10/42 and 3/12 in the non-PR and the PR groups, respectively (P = 0.93). Intraocular lens implantation was performed in 40/42 non-PR dogs and 11/12 PR dogs (P = 0.63, 73/79 vs. 21/23 eyes). At final re-examination, RD occurred in 4/79 eyes without retinopexy, compared to 0/23 RD in the retinopexy group. There was no statistically significant difference in RD rates between the two groups (P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide no statistical evidence to support prophylactic retinopexy in Bichon Frises. Due to the low rate of retinal detachment following phacoemulsification without prophylactic retinopexy, the procedure appears to offer limited benefit to offset cost, procedural risk, and risk of extended or repeated anesthesia in Bichon Frises.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".