MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025636369 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e31816299bc

Intermediate-term Outcome and Success of Superior Versus Inferior Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation

2008· article· en· W2025636369 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucoma valveGlaucomaTerm (time)OphthalmologyOutcome (game theory)OptometrySurgeryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The superotemporal quadrant is usually the implantation site of choice for glaucoma drainage devices. Inferior placement of glaucoma drainage device is considered technically difficult. The purpose was to determine the success rates, complications, and visual outcome of superior versus inferior Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the records of 83 eyes (77 patients) that underwent Ahmed Glaucoma Valve surgery from 1997 to 2004. Thirty-one eyes had superior insertion (SI) versus 52 eyes with inferior insertion (II). Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative data including intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity, and number of medications, and complications were recorded. Success was defined as postoperative IOP between 5 and 21 mm Hg and at least a 20% reduction from baseline IOP. RESULTS: The mean postoperative IOPs at 6 months, 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 years were 13.5+/-3.2 mm Hg versus 12.8+/-3.6 mm Hg (P=0.76), 12.5+/-3.1 mm Hg versus 13.0+/-4.0 mm Hg (P=0.5), 15.7+/-6.2 mm Hg versus 12.6+/-4.7 mm Hg (P=0.06), 13.2+/-3.0 mm Hg versus 12.6+/-3.3 mm Hg (P=0.70), and 14.5+/-3.0 mm Hg versus 13.7+/-5.0 mm Hg (P=0.73) in the SI group versus the II group, respectively. The success rates were similar between the groups over the study period with 87.0% versus 86.5%, 71.5% versus 73.0%, and 71.5% versus 64.6% for SI versus II at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. There were more complications in the II group; however, only wound dehiscence and transient diplopia were statistically significant (P=0.04 and 0.001, respectively). The number of glaucoma medications was lower in the SI during the first 3 months but nonsignificant thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in IOP control between SI and II over 36 months. II should be considered when there are limitations to SI.

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.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.275 · 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