Priming the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the pressure required to prime an Ahmed Glaucoma Valve (AGV) and determine whether the valve can be damaged by "over-priming pressure." METHODS: Three AGVs, a syringe pump, and a manometer were used to assess priming pressure. Balanced salt solution was pumped through the AGV tube at increasing pressures until a jet of fluid was seen to eject from the AGV, as per manufacturer instructions. This was repeated 3 times for 3 different virgin AGVs giving the "priming pressure." A second experiment used the same experimental set up to determine the "over-priming pressure" on 3 other AGVs. Fluid was pumped through the AGV at increasing pressures until evidence of damage was seen. The valve function was assessed before and after the "over-priming" stress test. Valve function was determined by the closing pressure, which is the pressure at which the valve closes and fluid was no longer seen passing through the valve. RESULTS: The priming pressure in the 3 AGVs was 2844, 3154, and 3051 mm Hg (mean, 3017±158 mm Hg). The maximum pressure generated using the syringe pump was 10,860, 10,343, and 10,860 mm Hg (mean, 10,688±299 mm Hg). No damage was observed in the valve mechanism. AGV closing pressure before the "over-priming" stress test was 8, 6, and 13 mm Hg and after the stress test was 6, 7, and 13 mm Hg. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the priming pressure is consistent at around 3000 mm Hg. In addition, over-priming is not likely to damage or disturb the closing pressure.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".