Five-Year Results of 5-Fluorouracil Augmented Needling Revision of Failing Blebs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To report the 5-year intraocular pressure (IOP) outcomes of patients requiring a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) needling revision compared to a matched sample. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty eyes receiving 5-FU bleb needling revision were matched to 40 patients not needled. IOP was recorded preoperatively and annually to 5 years. The main outcome measure was surgical success: IOP control without medications or surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with 5-FU needling revision (80.0%) required anti-glaucoma medication postoperatively versus 28 control patients (70%) (P > .05). Thirty-two patients with 5-FU needling revision were complete or qualified successes compared to 36 control patients (P = .34). Eight patients with 5-FU needling revision (20%) had a reoperation versus 4 control patients (10%) (P > .05). CONCLUSION: 5-FU needling revision can produce long-term IOP control levels similar to those who did not require the procedure. No statistically significant differences between the two groups was seen in either the use of medications or further surgery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".