MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106608025 · doi:10.1186/1869-5760-3-61

Treatment of refractory uveitic macular edema with dexamethasone intravitreal implants in a pediatric patient with bilateral granulomatous idiopathic panuveitis: a case report

2013· article· en· W2106608025 on OpenAlexafffund
Serge Bourgault, Maryam Aroichane, Leah A. Wittenberg, Andréane Lavallée, Elise Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAllerganUniversité Laval
KeywordsMedicineMacular edemaDexamethasoneUveitisOphthalmologyImplantRefractory (planetary science)EdemaVisual acuitySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Macular edema is a common complication of uveitis and represents a therapeutic challenge, especially in children. Recently, intravitreal dexamethasone implants have been shown to decrease intraocular inflammation and to control uveitic macular edema in patients with non-infectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. FINDINGS: An 11-year-old boy with bilateral granulomatous idiopathic panuveitis and orbital inflammation experienced macular edema refractory to topical steroids and subcutaneous methotrexate. He was treated with off-label bilateral injections of dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Three months later, his vision had improved from 20/200 in both eyes to 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left eye. Optical coherence tomography showed complete resolution of the cystoid macular edema and subretinal fluid in both eyes. CONCLUSIONS: This is a rare report of the use of bilateral dexamethasone intravitreal implant in a pediatric patient. The implants achieved complete resolution of the uveitic macular edema with no adverse events 3 months post-implantation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and InfectionSame topicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s SyndromeFrench-language works237,207