EXTERNAL VERSUS INTERNAL APPROACH TO THE REMOVAL OF METALLIC INTRAOCULAR FOREIGN BODIES
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
OBJECTIVE: To review the management of metallic intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB) at a single institution and to compare the use of internal and external approaches for their removal. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 70 eyes from 70 patients who underwent surgical removal of a metallic IOFB with either an internal (vitrectomy followed by forceps or internal magnet use) or external approach (large electromagnet) by seven vitreoretinal surgeons at a single institution between 1973 and 1996. Visual acuity and complications occurring with the two approaches were the main outcome measures studied. RESULTS: Overall, patients showed significant improvement in visual acuity following surgical intervention (P < 0.001) despite widely varying surgical techniques. When the authors compared patients treated with an external versus an internal approach they found no statistically significant difference with regard to visual outcome and a trend toward a higher rate of postoperative endophthalmitis in the external approach group. CONCLUSION: Surgical removal of metallic IOFB results in significant visual improvement. The external approach to the removal of magnetic metallic IOFB remains a viable treatment option in select cases.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it