Cystoid macular edema after phacoemulsification: risk factors and effect on visual acuity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the incidence and risk factors for cystoid macular edema (CME) after phacoemulsification surgery and its effect on visual acuity. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated 98 eyes of 98 patients (43 women) with a mean (SD) age of 61.8 (11.3) years. Phacoemulsification was performed with temporal clear corneal incision and implantation of foldable hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens in the bag. Postoperative visits were on day 1, week 1, and at 1, 3, and 6 months. In addition, at week 10 all patients had fundus fluorescein angiography, and presence of CME was determined. Age, sex, iris colour, pseudoexfoliation, type of cataract, phaco time, status of the posterior vitreous, iris trauma, severity of anterior chamber reaction, and visual acuities were evaluated. RESULTS: No major intraoperative complications occurred. Twenty-five (25.5%) eyes were CME(+), and 73 (74.4%) eyes were CME(-). CME occurred in 70% of patients with iris trauma and 20.5% of patients with no iris trauma. CME was more common in patients who had postoperative anterior chamber inflammation of 2+ or more than in patients with less inflammation (43.2% vs. 11.5%). Complete posterior vitreous detachment had some apparent protective effect against CME development. The mean visual acuities of CME(+) patients were lower than those of CME(-) patients in all postoperative periods. The difference was significant in the third month (p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: CME after phacoemulsification was associated with iris trauma and severe postoperative inflammation. Complete posterior vitreous detachment had some apparent protective effect against CME development. CME may be associated with decreased visual acuity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".