Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current management of many retinal conditions, including age related macular degeneration, retinal vascular occlusion, and diabetic macular edema is not curative and requires prolonged monthly intravitreal injections. The most severe complication of this procedure is endophthalmitis and accordingly, more than two thirds of retinal specialists reported the use of topical antibiotics post‐ injection in a recent survey. However, there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in reducing the risk of post‐injection endophthalmitis. We reported a large, multicentre, retrospective consecutive case series, the incidence of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections in association with different post‐injection antibiotic practices. We found that the omission of routine topical antibiotic post‐injection did not produce a pronounced increase in endophthalmitis rates, suggesting that the use of topical antibiotic post‐injection might be unnecessary. In fact, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, both immediately after the injection and for five days post‐injection is associated with greater rates of endophthalmitis, than without antibiotics.
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 | 0.000 | 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".