MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983255851 · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e3283365154

Intraocular lens choices for patients with glaucoma

2010· review· en· W1983255851 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua C. Teichman, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsCredit Valley HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaOphthalmologyTrabeculectomyCataract surgeryIntraocular lensGlaucoma surgeryOptometrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the unique functional and structural changes in glaucoma and the impact on intraocular lens (IOL) selection. RECENT FINDINGS: Glaucoma is a common ocular disease. Functional and structural changes associated with glaucoma require special consideration in the patient who is undergoing cataract/IOL surgery. Decreased contrast sensitivity found in glaucoma may be enhanced by the use of aspheric IOLs. Small pupils and weakened zonules necessitate meticulous surgical technique and increase the risk of IOL dislocation, as does anterior capsular contraction. Posterior capsular opacification is a common postoperative complication and may be related to IOL material and design. Both anterior chamber depth and axial length may change in patients who have had trabeculectomy and should be considered in the preoperative plan. Multifocal IOLs may afford spectacle independence for patients; however, there is a paucity of data for their use in concurrent ocular disease. SUMMARY: Although there are challenges in performing cataract surgery in patients with glaucoma, excellent outcomes may be obtained with proper preoperative planning, meticulous intraoperative technique, and appropriate selection of IOL design.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OphthalmologySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207