MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069242500 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e31826ab693

Conjunctival Complications Related to Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Insertion

2012· article· en· W2069242500 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

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucoma valveConfidence intervalGlaucomaSurgeryQuadrant (abdomen)OphthalmologyRetrospective cohort studyDehiscenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Conjunctival complications may occur after glaucoma drainage device surgery. We analyzed the frequency, risk factors, management and outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV)-related conjunctival complications. METHODS: Retrospective review of postoperative conjunctival complications in patients undergoing AGV insertion. Only subjects with ≥1-year follow-up were included. RESULTS: The charts of 158 subjects with a median age of 64±16.2 years were reviewed. Median follow-up was 43.5 months (range, 12 to 103 mo). Fifty-three (33.5%) wound dehiscences and 14 (8.9%) device exposures were diagnosed 31.6±35.7 and 996±735 days after procedure, respectively (P<0.001). Ninety-one subjects (57.6%) had no conjunctival complications. This uncomplicated group used 3.3 (±1.1) [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.07, 3.51] hypotensive medications before surgery as compared with 3.8 (±1.1) (95% CI: 3.48, 4.10) and 3.9 (±0.9) (95% CI: 3.36, 4.36) for dehiscence and exposure groups, respectively (P=0.01). The inferonasal quadrant was associated with the highest rate of dehiscences (4/7, 57.1%) (95% CI: 18.4, 90.1), followed by the inferotemporal quadrant (30/65, 46.2%) (95% CI: 33.1, 58.2), the superotemporal (15/61, 24.6%) (95% CI: 12.9, 33.8), and the superonasal (4/25, 16%) (95% CI: 10.9-52.0; P<0.0073). There were no differences in dehiscence and exposure rates between limbal versus fornix-based approaches (P=0.54; 95% CI: 24.8-44.9, 24.4-45.7, 5.9-19.6, 3-45.1, respectively). Forty-eight (90.6%) dehiscent wounds resolved with conservative management and 5 were resutured, whereas all exposed devices were managed surgically. CONCLUSIONS: Conjunctival dehiscence is usually a benign, common complication after AGV insertion. It does not need repair as long as the tube is well covered. AGV tube or plate exposures are less common, occur later and were promptly repaired as per current practice. Important factors predisposing to these problems include a greater number of preoperative hypotensive medications and the implantation quadrant.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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