Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liyanage et al.1 should be commended for attempting to study incisional leakage and potential anterior chamber stability during cataract surgery, although the latter was not formally studied. Unfortunately, the study has several methodological issues, including a very rudimentary method to measure irrigation and aspiration volume (graduations on irrigation bottle and aspiration bag, respectively). Measuring volume differences using a strain gauge might have been more precise. Our biggest concern is in the second part of the study in which the maintenance of a chopping instrument within the side port and its impact on incision leakage was evaluated. Fluid loss between 2 different surgeons (one who removed the chopper after chopping and one who did not) was compared. Although incision sizes were apparently similar, numerous confounding variables probably made the results less meaningful. Confounders that were not reported or controlled include specific machine settings (bottle height, flow/vacuum settings, power modulation), bed height, surgical styles (handling of chopper, maneuvers), hand positioning, cataract density, phaco times, intraocular lens model and size, and surgeon skill. While we assume neither surgeon used continuous irrigation, one surgeon might have been in foot position 2 between chopping/lens manipulations, while the other surgeon might have preferred foot position 1; this can dramatically alter the measured incision leakage. Furthermore, with such a small number of cases assessed (11 in one group and 16 in the other), a spurious result is highly possible. The scatterplot presented is misleading because data appear to be presented as paired data when, in fact, they are not. Although a percentage score of incision leakage was used to negate variable surgical times, other factors as discussed above could have exerted a confounding effect on the results. Furthermore, it might have been better to measure fluid inflow and outflow during only the phacoemulsification portion of the procedure to more accurately assess differences in side-port instrumentation techniques. Although the authors raised some important considerations in phaco technique, we would encourage a more robust and controlled method of analyzing the impact of side-port instrumentation. A second instrument can provide stability for the eye during topical surgery, and many surgeons find it helpful in carouseling nuclear fragments at the phaco tip. This permits greater efficiency, less turbulence, and reduced case times, as well as improved fluidic and phacoemulsification metrics. To reduce the potential for excessive leakage from side-port incisions, we advocate a smaller side-port incision with a trapezoidal design (1.0 mm external incision and 0.5 mm internal incision) to prevent oar locking but with less leakage and using the incision as fulcrum to reduce tissue trauma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".