Prevalence of Harmful/Traditional Medication Use in Traumatic Eye Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Ocular trauma of varying aetiologies do occur frequently, however when different traditional/harmful substances are applied before presentation in the hospital, prognosis in terms of visual outcome following treatment may be worse than expected. This study is aimed at determining the prevalence of harmful/traditional eye medication practices among patients with traumatic eye injury in a tertiary institution. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: It is a retrospective study of patients seen at the eye clinic of the Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital (a state government owned hospital), Ado Ekiti, from January to December 2009. METHODS: A review of case notes (medical records) of patients with history of ocular trauma both open and closed globe injury and who presented to the eye clinic of the Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital, Ado Ekiti from January to December 2009 was carried out. Demographic data of the patients, nature of the ocular trauma, substances applied to the eyes, visual acuity at presentation and after treatment were extracted. Frequencies and percentages were used in analysing the data. RESULT: A total of 1420 new patients attended the eye clinic during the study period (January to December 2009). Forty eight (3.4%) applied various substances into their eyes after sustaining ocular injury. Substances applied include Kerosene 25%, cassava water 20.8%, breast milk 12.5%, personal urine 10.8%, and cow urine 8.3%. Nearly half of the patients 23 (47.9%) presented with low vision and after treatment there was no visual improvement in almost all of them, 22 (45.8%). The period before presentation ranges between 1hr -2 weeks post injury. However, the number of monocular blindness reduced from 8 (16.7%) to 5 (10.4%) after treatment. CONCLUSION: Kerosene and Cassava water were the common substances applied to the injured eye. The use of these harmful and traditional eye medications on injured eyes can reduce further the visual prognosis despite ophthalmic intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".