Understanding, retaining, and removing dispersive and pseudodispersive ophthalmic viscosurgical devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze and explain the rheologic behavior of pseudodispersive viscoadaptive ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) and compare it with that of dispersive OVDs. SETTING: York Finch Eye Associates and Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Poiseuille's law was used as a basis of understanding fluid aspiration. Each OVD class was analyzed to determine how well it fit the law and why. RESULTS: Higher viscosity cohesive OVDs are removed in a manner predicted by Poiseuille's law. Lower viscosity dispersive and viscoadaptive OVDs are not. CONCLUSIONS: Lower viscosity dispersive OVDs possess inadequate cohesion to maintain continuous contact with the aspiration port during irrigation/aspiration, whereas viscoadaptive OVDs are too rigid to permit scrolling around obstacles in the eye (the intraocular lens), also resulting in interrupted contact with the aspiration port. Dispersion and pseudodispersion represent opposite ends of a spectrum of increasing cohesion and rigidity correlating with increasing zero-shear viscosity and are not similar.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".