MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139118467 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.09.015

Aqueous humor penetration of gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin eyedrops given by different methods before cataract surgery

2006· article· en· W2139118467 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay Ong-Tone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsRegina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGatifloxacinMoxifloxacinAqueous humorPenetration (warfare)OphthalmologyMedicinePhacoemulsificationCataract surgeryAqueous solutionOphthalmic surgerySurgeryChemistryVisual acuityAntibioticsOrganic chemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine whether the penetration into the aqueous humor of 2 new fourth-generation fluoroquinolone antibiotics, gatifloxacin (Zymar) and moxifloxacin (Vigamox) eyedrops, was affected by different methods of administration before cataract surgery. SETTING: Pasqua Hospital, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: This prospective randomized study comprised 193 patients. The patients were divided into 2 main groups. One group received gatifloxacin eyedrops and the other, moxifloxacin eyedrops. Each group was subdivided into 4 subgroups. All patients received the drops 4 times a day starting 2 days preoperatively. The first subgroup did not receive any more antibiotics. The second subgroup received the antibiotic drops 3 times, starting approximately 2 hours preoperatively. The third subgroup received a wick soaked in a dilating mixture containing the antibiotic. The fourth subgroup received the wick and the antibiotic drops at the time of preparation for surgery. At the beginning of surgery, 0.1 mL of aqueous humor was aspirated, frozen, and sent under ice by courier to the Provincial Laboratory for analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: The study included 124 women and 69 men. The mean concentrations in the aqueous humor were 0.19, 0.82, 0.22, and 0.30 microg/mL in the 4 gatifloxacin subgroups, respectively, and 0.38, 2.16, 0.88, and 0.97 microg/mL in the 4 moxifloxacin subgroups, respectively. Analysis of variance showed the differences between the 2 antibiotics to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Moxifloxacin penetrated the aqueous humor better than gatifloxacin regardless of the method of administration. Both antibiotics penetrated the aqueous humor well when given in drop form. They reached and exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration levels for the most common ocular pathogens causing endophthalmitis. Only moxifloxacin reached these levels when the wick was used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207