MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091715131 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.02.048

Optimal timing of capsular tension ring implantation: Miyake-Apple video analysis

2005· article· en· W2091715131 on OpenAlexaff
Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed, Robert J. Cionni, Christoph Kranemann, Alan S. Crandall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsCrandall UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapsulorhexisMedicineOphthalmologyElongationSurgerySalt lakeLens (geology)Intraocular lensAnatomyMaterials scienceVisual acuityOpticsBiologyPhacoemulsificationUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the appropriate timing for capsular tension ring implantation in cases of zonular weakness either prior to or after lens extraction using Miyake-Apple video analysis. SETTING: John Moran Eye Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. METHODS: Four cadaver eyes were prepared using a standard Miyake-Apple protocol with image capture using digital video recording. After continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis and hydrodissection/viscodissection were performed, 2 eyes had early capsular tension ring implantation (CTR) and 2 eyes had CTR implantation after lens extraction. The 12.3 mm CTR was implanted in all eyes. Capsular bag torque and displacement, zonular elongation and stress, and ease of CTR placement were evaluated in each eye. RESULTS: Early CTR implantation resulted in significantly increased capsular torque and displacement of up to 4.0 mm compared to insertion in an empty capsular bag. There was significant zonular elongation and tension during early placement. CONCLUSION: In terms of minimizing further zonular stress and damage and capsular destabilization, the ideal timing for CTR placement is after lens extraction and decompression of the capsular bag.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207