Glaucoma Aqueous Drainage Device Erosion Repair With Buccal Mucous Membrane Grafts
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: Glaucoma aqueous drainage devices are important and effective in the management of recalcitrant glaucoma. One complication of this procedure is erosion and exposure of the tube or plate. Strategies to re-cover glaucoma aqueous drainage devices in such cases have met with variable success. The majority of these interventions use conjunctiva for superficial coverage. However, conjunctiva can be in limited supply, and subject to reerosion. METHODS: In this report, we discuss the use of oral buccal mucous membrane in combination with a lamellar corneal patch graft for repair of 3 exposed tubes, 2 plates, and a pars plana clip. Mean time to exposure was 4.8 years. Five eyes from 4 patients are presented and the surgical technique is described. RESULTS: Buccal membrane repairs were considered a surgical success in 5 out of 6 cases (83%) with mean follow-up of 1.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate the use of buccal membrane in the repair of glaucoma aqueous drainage device tube/plate erosions in patients for whom local conjunctiva is of variable quality or limited supply. Advantages of this procedure and tissue option are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 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