MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981504985 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.08.062

Systemic absorption of mitomycin-C when used in refractive surgery

2012· article· en· W1981504985 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney Crawford, Darryl J. Ainbinder, Robert Davis, Roger K. George, Bruce A. Rivers, Mark A. Wingerd, Mark F. Torres, A.R. Dent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitomycin CRefractive surgeryAbsorption (acoustics)OpticsOphthalmologyMedicineMaterials scienceSurgeryCorneaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine whether corneal topical application of mitomycin-C (MMC) results in measurable plasma levels of systemic absorption. SETTING: Madigan Army Medical Center, Refractive Surgery Center, Fort Lewis, Washington, and Micro-Constants Laboratory, San Diego, California, USA. DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: The study comprised male and female active-duty soldiers having excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy with MMC. Patients who met inclusion criteria were asked to provide a blood sample immediately after being treated with MMC 0.2 mg/mL (0.02%) for 30 seconds. Human plasma samples were evaluated by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry to determine whether MMC was present. RESULTS: Thirty samples were submitted for evaluation. There was zero detection of MMC in the submitted samples. The quantifiable limit was greater than 10.0 ng/mL. All samples were below this. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 30 patients with topical application of MMC for refractive surgery, there was no measurable evidence of systemic absorption. Although systemic absorption has been found with use in larger quantities, it was not known whether MMC toxicity concerns could be extrapolated to the refractive surgery population. This information allows counseling of patients on the extremely low likelihood of systemic absorption or toxicity following current techniques for refractive surgery. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207