Comparison between Obtained Mydriasis in Type 2 Diabetics and Non-Diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate and compare obtained mydriasis with phenylephrine 10% associated with tropicamide 1% in type 2 diabetics and non-diabetic patients. METHODS: A total of 50 patients (100 eyes) scheduled for fundoscopy were dilated with phenylephrine 10% and yropicamide 1% (group 0: n = 20 type 2 diabetic patients, 40 eyes, and group 1: n = 30 non-diabetic patients, 60 eyes). Only one drop per eye of each drug was administered. In both groups, pupil diameter was measured after 40 minutes of eye drops instillation. RESULTS: Both groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.06, Mann-Whitney test). Mean pupil diameter in group 0 was 8.57 and 8.73 in group 1. There was no statistic difference between both groups (p = 0.44). Pupil diameter was greater than 7 mm in all patients (100%). CONCLUSION: When an appropriate drug combination is used, diabetic patients can achieve mydriasis as satisfactory as non-diabetic patients, allowing adequate fundus examination and/or retinopathy treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".