MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004473197 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.11.028

Primary piggyback implantation of 3 intraocular lenses in nanophthalmos

2007· article· en· W2004473197 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy Y. Cao, Marisa Sit, Rosa Braga-Mele

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraocular lensMedicineDioptreOphthalmologySiliconeIRIS (biosensor)PhacoemulsificationSulcusCapsulorhexisIntraocular lensesCataract extractionSurgeryVisual acuityMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a patient with bilateral nanophthalmos who had uneventful cataract extraction in the right eye with primary implantation of 3 intraocular lenses (IOLs) of 2 different materials: a 30 diopter (D) acrylic IOL and a 9 D silicone IOL in the capsular bag and a 30 D silicone IOL in the ciliary sulcus. Subsequently, cataract extraction was done in the left eye with bag-sulcus implantation of two 30 D silicone IOLs. The use of 3 IOLs in 1 eye was necessary because the highest available power of acrylic and silicone IOLs at our institution was 30 D. The only short-term complications were temporary corneal edema and partial displacement of the sulcus IOL anterior to the iris in the right eye and bilateral posterior capsule opacification. The late complication of interlenticular opacification was not present 1 year after piggyback IOL implantation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207