MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visual recovery after retinal detachment

2000· review· en· W2069084540 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinal detachmentVisual acuityOphthalmologyOptometryRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual recovery after successful surgery for the macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment continues to be an important topic for ophthalmologists. Recent studies have shown that despite the intuitive notion regarding outcomes in macula-off detachment, there is no improvement in final visual acuity despite more expedient repair within the first week. Macula-off detachments can therefore be treated with less urgency and can wait for the next scheduled available operating room time. Surgeons involved in retinal detachment surgery should be aware that visual function based on acuity testing may continue to improve in the long term, most notably in those with the following patient characteristics: younger age, no or mild myopia (less than -5.00 D), and shorter duration of macular detachment (30 days or less).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it