MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108679005 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.058

Perioperative use of warfarin and aspirin in cataract surgery by Canadian Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery members: Survey

2005· article· en· W2108679005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay Ong-Tone, Elan Paluck, Regan Hart-Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRegina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinAspirinCataract surgeryPerioperativePhacoemulsificationRefractive surgerySurgeryGeneral surgeryOphthalmologyCorneaInternal medicineVisual acuityAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To survey the members of the Canadian Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (CSCRS) and identify their practices regarding the perioperative use of warfarin and acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) in cataract surgery. SETTING: Private practice, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: Members of the CSCRS were faxed a questionnaire that examined their perioperative management of patients being treated with warfarin and aspirin. RESULTS: Of the 110 eligible participants, 82 returned a completed questionnaire, representing a response rate of 74.5%. Warfarin or aspirin was routinely stopped prior to cataract surgery by 25.6% of the respondents. The majority of surgeons who discontinued these medications reported doing so 3 to 7 days prior to surgery and resumed their use 1 to 2 days postoperatively. Topical anesthesia and clear corneal incisions were preferred by the higher volume surgeons. These surgeons were also less likely to discontinue either warfarin or aspirin preoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the Canadian Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery members do not stop either warfarin or aspirin for cataract surgery during the perioperative period.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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