MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974146238 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.05.017

Use of a microscope-mounted wide-angle point of view camera to record optimal hand position in ocular surgery

2014· article· en· W1974146238 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Gooi, Yusuf Kola Ahmed, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsCredit Valley HospitalTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroscopePosition (finance)Point (geometry)Operating microscopeOptometryOcular surgeryComputer visionOphthalmologyComputer scienceOpticsMedicineArtificial intelligenceSurgeryMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: We describe the use of a microscope-mounted wide-angle point-of-view camera to record optimal hand positions in ocular surgery. The camera is mounted close to the objective lens beneath the surgeon's oculars and faces the same direction as the surgeon, providing a surgeon's view. A wide-angle lens enables viewing of both hands simultaneously and does not require repositioning the camera during the case. Proper hand positioning and instrument placement through microincisions are critical for effective and atraumatic handling of tissue within the eye. Our technique has potential in the assessment and training of optimal hand position for surgeons performing intraocular surgery. It is an innovative way to routinely record instrument and operating hand positions in ophthalmic surgery and has minimal requirements in terms of cost, personnel, and operating-room space. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207