Factors Associated With Outcome of Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with outcome of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four cases of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in 111 patients performed for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction by a single surgeon between March 12, 2002 and November 10, 2008 were included in a retrospective, noncomparative case series. Variables assessed during the surgery included intranasal view, difficulty of bone removal, size of the lacrimal sac, presence of lacrimal sac stones, orbital fat prolapse and degree of bleeding. Successful outcome was defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation at final follow up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one of the 134 cases (90%) were patent to irrigation at final follow up (mean 8.8 ± 8.6 months). A small lacrimal sac opening intraoperatively was associated with higher risk of failure (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of 5.7 [1.6, 20] [p = 0.0072]). Orbital fat prolapse had a trend toward higher risk of failure that approached statistical significance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of 5.3 [0.87, 32] [p = 0.0698]). A narrow intranasal view, difficult bony opening, lacrimal sac stones, and bleeding were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A small lacrimal sac opening intraoperatively was associated with failure of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it