MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017342474 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e3181aff448

Buccal Mucous Membrane for the Reconstruction of Complicated Leaking Trabeculectomy Blebs

2010· article· en· W2017342474 on OpenAlexaff
Dan B. Rootman, Nikhil L. Kumar, David S. Rootman, Graham E. Trope

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrabeculectomyMedicineBleb (medicine)Buccal administrationConjunctivaSurgeryGlaucomaLeakBuccal mucosaMucous membraneOphthalmologyDentistryOral cavityPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Late onset trabeculectomy bleb leaks often require surgical repair to avoid hypotony and/or infection. Repair using local conjunctiva is typically performed. However, in cases in which local conjunctiva is limited and/or has failed, buccal mucous membrane can be used as a conjunctival substitute. METHODS: Four cases of buccal mucous membrane repair for leaking trabeculectomy blebs are reported. Surgical technique is described. RESULTS: In each case of bleb leak, multiple nonincisional techniques failed to control the leak. In 3 of 4 cases, earlier reconstruction attempts with conjunctival advancement and/or free flaps failed. Each was ultimately repaired with buccal membrane autograft. One case required additional minimally invasive procedures to control postoperative leaking. One case required a second adjacent buccal graft for leaking residual conjunctival bleb. Each graft was functioning well at most recent follow-up ranging from 1 to 17 months. DISCUSSION: Buccal membrane is an abundant and effective conjunctival substitute for the repair of recalcitrant leaking trabeculectomy blebs. It may be useful in cases in which earlier conjunctival-based repairs have failed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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