Safety study of capsular tension ring use in canine phacoemulsification and<scp>IOL</scp>implantation
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
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare surgical outcome and complications in canine eyes with stable, cataractous lenses undergoing routine phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with or without implantation of a capsular tension ring device (CTR). PROCEDURES: Dogs undergoing routine bilateral phacoemulsification and IOL implantation had one eye randomly chosen to have a CTR (47 eyes) inserted while the contralateral eye served as a control (47 eyes). The CTR was placed in the capsular bag following phacoemulsification and immediately prior to IOL implantation. All eyes received acrylic foldable IOLs. Patients were evaluated intra- and postoperatively, and complications were compared between eyes with and without a CTR. RESULTS: There were no intra-operative complications associated with implantation of the CTR. Postoperatively, the overall incidences of glaucoma (6%), intraocular hemorrhage (4%), and retinal detachment (2%) were equal between control and CTR eyes at the time of last follow-up. There was no significant difference in overall incidence of immediate postoperative uveitis (35% vs. 38%) or fibrin (19% vs. 15%) between control and CTR eyes. Follow-up time ranged from 2 weeks to 21 months. CONCLUSION: In canine eyes with stable cataractous lenses undergoing routine phacoemulsification and IOL implantation placement of a CTR does not increase the risk of intra- or postoperative complications.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it