Continuous Intraocular Pressure (IOP) Measurement During Glaucoma Drainage Device Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure the effect of the implantation of a glaucoma drainage device on the intraocular pressure (IOP) during the implantation surgery. METHOD: We implanted telemetry devices into 1 eye each of 3 white New Zealand rabbits. Once the telemetry was found to be working and the rabbits had fully recovered from surgery, we implanted a glaucoma drainage device into the same eye while continually monitoring the IOP with the telemetry devices. RESULTS: During surgery IOP was extremely variable, however, extremely high pressures were recorded in association with suturing and viscoelastic injection. DISCUSSION: The fact that pressures are significantly raised during some surgical events should make surgeons aware that manipulations need to be kept as short as possible to prevent further potential damage to glaucomatous optic nerves. There is a possibility of dramatically raising the IOP during surgery, specifically in complicated cases requiring prolonged manipulation and/or forcible deepening of the anterior chamber. In such cases, it may be a good idea to time the duration of manipulations to prevent prolonged episodes of elevated IOP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".