MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969885251 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e31828f9d64

Eye Banking and Corneal Transplantation Communicable Adverse Incidents

2013· review· en· W1969885251 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Dubord, GS Evans, Marian S. Macsai, Mark J. Mannis, David B. Glasser, Douglas M. Strong, Luc Noël

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorneal transplantationMedicineEye bankTransplantationCorneaOptometryBusinessOphthalmologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Evidence of the transmission of disease via donor ocular tissue has been demonstrated for adenocarcinoma, rabies, hepatitis B virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and a variety of bacterial and fungal infections. METHODS: Although there is no evidence to date of disease transmission for HIV infection, syphilis, hepatitis C, hepatitis A, tuberculosis, HTLV-1 and -2 infection, active leprosy, active typhoid, smallpox, and active malaria, these entities remain contraindications for transplantation for all eye banks nationally and internationally. The potential sources of contamination include infected donors, during the process of removing tissue from cadaveric donors, the processing environment, and contaminated supplies and reagents used during processing. The transmissions of Herpes simplex virus and HSV via corneal graft have been shown to be responsible for primary graft failure. HSV-1 may also be an important cause of PFG. RESULTS: The long latency period of some diseases, the emergence of new infectious disease, and the reemergence of others emphasize the need for long-term record maintenance and effective tracing capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: The standardization of definitions for adverse events and reactions will be necessary to support the prevention and transmission of disease. International classification of a unique identification system for donors will be increasingly important for vigilance and traceability in cross-national exportation of human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products. Opportunities for continuous improvement exist as does the need for constant vigilance and surveillance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207