Evaluation of a Modified Protocol for Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) response to a modified protocol for selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) to standard protocols for SLT and argon laser trabeculoplasty (ALT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 318 eyes of 284 patients diagnosed with either primary open angle, pigmentary or pseudoexfoliation glaucoma who underwent laser trabeculoplasty from September 1997 to September 2005. One hundred and two patients, who underwent a modified SLT protocol with 100 overlapping laser spots over 180 degrees of trabecular meshwork were compared with 89 patients who received SLT with 100 nonoverlapping spots over 360 degrees and another 127 patients who received ALT with 50 spots over 180 degrees. IOPs were measured at baseline and postoperatively at 1 hour, 6 weeks, 4 months, and 14 months. Regression models, based on the observed data, were used to predict the fall in IOP in the 3 groups, controlling for differences in baseline pressure. RESULTS: The IOP response to overlapping SLT was significantly worse than to nonoverlapping SLT or ALT, both of which had similar responses. Baseline IOP was the only preoperative factor that predicted response to ALT (P<0.0001) and nonoverlapping SLT (P=0.0019) at all follow-up times. There were no statistically significant predictive factors for IOP reduction in the overlapping SLT group. CONCLUSIONS: Overlapping application of SLT results in a poorer IOP response compared with ALT and nonoverlapping SLT.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".