Understanding, retaining, and removing dispersive and pseudodispersive ophthalmic viscosurgical devices
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: 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it