Is the Ex-PRESS Glaucoma Shunt Magnetic Resonance Imaging Safe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ex-PRESS mini glaucoma shunt is a miniature, stainless steel, nonvalved device used for the treatment of glaucoma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt during magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS: The effect of a magnetic field on the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt was evaluated in 4 scenarios. (1) Wet dish test: the device was placed floating in a dish filled with water and exposed to magnetic fields of 1.5 and 3 Tesla for 30 seconds. (2) Dry dish test: the device was placed on a dry dish and exposed to a magnetic field of 3 Tesla MR for 30 seconds. (3) Intracameral test: the device was floating freely in the anterior chamber of a human cadaver eye and was exposed to a magnetic field of 3 Tesla MR. (4) Scleral fixation test: the device was implanted through the sclera of a human cadaver eye and was exposed to a magnetic field of 3 Tesla MR. RESULTS: During the wet dish test the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt immediately moved across the dish with both 1.5 and 3 Tesla MR. No movements were noted during the dry dish test, intracameral test, or the scleral fixation test. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt is influenced by magnetic field forces, it is likely MR of up to 3 Tesla is safe due to resistance provided by the ocular tissue.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".