MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028890674 · doi:10.1076/opep.8.2.155.4165

Recurrence of trichiasis: A long-term follow-up study in the Sultanate of Oman

2001· article· en· W2028890674 on OpenAlexaff
Rajiv Khandekar, Ali Jaffer Mohammed, Paul Courtright

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Epidemiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrichiasisSurgeryConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of long-term trichiasis recurrence following tarsal rotation and electro-epilation procedures has not been determined. A non-concurrent prospective study of surgical cases of trichiasis was therefore undertaken in Oman. METHODS: A sample of 603 surgical cases of trichiasis (approximately half tarsal rotation and half electro-epilation) was followed for an average of 3.1 years to determine recurrence. Recurrence was defined as either mild (<5 lashes touching the globe) or severe (5 or more lashes touching the globe). RESULTS: Overall, 56% (95% confidence interval of 50.6%-61.0%) of all surgical cases recurred; ranging from 61.8% of tarsal rotation patients to 50.6% of electro-epilation patients. Severe recurrence was detected among 27% of tarsal rotation patients and 10% of electro-epilation patients. Recurrence was associated with female sex, residence in a high-risk region, and time since surgery. DISCUSSION: The risk of recurrence after electro-epilation and bilamellar tarsal rotation surgery is high; strategies that account for recurrence need to be introduced.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations92
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic EpidemiologySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207