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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pneumatic retinopexy is an effective, cost-efficient procedure for retinal detachment repair. We review the history, indications, procedure, outcomes, economics, and trends regarding this in-office procedure. RECENT FINDINGS: Pneumatic retinopexy is classically performed in patients with small, superior retinal breaks, but these indications are expanding, with good results. Retinal reattachment rates with pneumatic retinopexy vary from 60% to 91% depending upon patient selection. Pneumatic retinopexy is less costly to perform than scleral buckling and pars plana vitrectomy and avoids many of the complications associated with these procedures. Despite these good results, recent data suggest that the use of pneumatic retinopexy is on the decline. SUMMARY: Recent review of the literature and our own personal experience using pneumatic retinopexy in selected cases of retinal detachment indicate that it is an effective and inexpensive procedure that avoids many of the complications that are associated with other retinal reattachment procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it