MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeated Use of Transscleral Cyclophotocoagulation Laser G-Probes

2004· article· en· W1985706398 on OpenAlexaff
Mónica Carrillo, Graham E. Trope, Mary L. Chipman, Yvonne M. Buys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserMedicineBiomedical engineeringOphthalmologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the energy transmission of transscleral cyclophotocoagulation laser G-probes after repeated use. METHODS: In this prospective study, eight new laser probes were each used for 30 transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (TSCPC) sessions in cadaver human eyes with the laser settings of 2000 mW power, 2000 milliseconds duration, and 18 shots. The laser power output was measured using a laser energy output meter before and after each TSCPC session, after swabbing the laser probe tip with alcohol, and finally after thorough cleaning by flushing 70% alcohol inside the plastic footplate tip and swabbing with alcohol the fiberoptic tip. Laser probes were inspected for deterioration. Statistical analysis was done using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: The laser power output increased on average by 1.99 +/- 0.18 mW after each cycle (P < 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.63-2.35 mW, ANCOVA). No deterioration of the probes was found after 30 TSCPC and sterilization cycles. Laser energy output increased on average 6% (P < 0.01) from the baseline to the first TSCPC cycle. Probe number one broke during the tenth cycle and accordingly data was recorded for this probe until that cycle. CONCLUSION: G-probes not only remain fully functional after repeated use and sterilization with 70% alcohol but also slightly increase in energy output.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207