MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Infected Aluminum Oxide Orbital Implant

2006· article· en· W2016178142 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Jordan, Seymour Brownstein, Jennifer G. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicOcular Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnucleationImplantPyogenic granulomaAluminum oxideSurgerySigns and symptomsDermatologyAluminium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Porous orbital implant infection is rare. The diagnosis may be delayed as the initial symptoms and signs are not always indicative of implant infection. It is often only with time, a persistence of symptoms and signs, and additional symptoms and signs that implant infection is suspected. The authors report a 16-month-old boy after enucleation with an aluminum oxide implant with persistent conjunctival inflammation, discharge, and recurrent pyogenic granuloma indicative of an orbital implant infection.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySame topicOcular Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207