Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the problems associated with the use of 4 types of porous orbital implant (Bio-Eye coralline hydroxyapatite, FCI3 synthetic hydroxyapatite, aluminium oxide [Bioceramic], and porous polyethylene [Medpor]) after evisceration surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made of all cases of evisceration with placement of one of four types of porous orbital implants performed between 1991 and 2002 by one surgeon (n = 86). Patient age, implant type and size, surgery type (standard evisceration or evisceration with posterior sclerotomies), peg system used, follow-up duration, time of pegging, problems before and after pegging, and treatment were recorded. RESULTS: Eight patients had less than 6 months of follow-up. The other 78 patients were followed for 6 to 107 months (average, 31 months). The following problems were noted before peg placement: discharge, 8 patients (10.2%); implant exposure, 6 patients (7.7%); implant fracture at the time of surgery, 1 patient (1.3%); persistent pain, 1 patient (1.3%). Of the 29 patients who had pegging, problems including discharge, exposure, pyogenic granuloma, infection, and peg sleeve problems occurred in 23 (79.3%). Sixteen (55.2%) of the 29 patients required at least 1 additional surgical procedure, 4 required 3 additional procedures, and 2 required 5 additional procedures, including implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: Although primary evisceration with posterior sclerotomies and placement of a porous orbital implant is an accepted technique for treating a variety of end-stage eye diseases, patients should be cautioned about an increased likelihood of problems and potential need for additional surgeries if pegging is considered.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".