MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014898843 · doi:10.1136/bjo.2004.053678

Decreasing strabismus surgery

2005· article· en· W2014898843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anita Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrabismusMedicineStrabismus surgeryRecessionOptometryRetrospective cohort studyGeneral surgerySurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To determine whether there has been a consistent change across countries and healthcare systems in the frequency of strabismus surgery in children over the past decade. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data on all strabismus surgery performed in NHS hospitals in England and Wales, on children aged 0-16 years between 1989 and 2000, and between 1994 and 2000 in Ontario (Canada) hospitals. These were compared with published data for Scotland, 1989-2000. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1999-2000 the number of strabismus procedures performed on children, 0-16 years, in England decreased by 41.2% from 15 083 to 8869. Combined medial rectus recession with lateral rectus resection decreased from 5538 to 3013 (45.6%) in the same period. Bimedial recessions increased from 489 to 762, oblique tenotomies from 43 to 121, and the use of adjustable sutures from 29 to 44, in 2000. In Ontario, operations for squint decreased from 2280 to 1685 (26.1%) among 0-16 year olds between 1994 and 2000. CONCLUSION: The clinical impression of decrease in the frequency of paediatric strabismus surgery is confirmed. In the authors' opinion this cannot be fully explained by a decrease in births or by the method of healthcare funding. Two factors that might have contributed are better conservative strabismus management and increased subspecialisation that has improved the quality of surgery and the need for re-operation. This finding has a significant impact upon surgical services and also on the training of ophthalmologists.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicOphthalmology and Eye DisordersFrench-language works237,207