MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152836637 · doi:10.3928/15428877-20081101-02

Anterior Segment Imaging: Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Ultrasound Biomicroscopy

2008· article· en· W2152836637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.P. S. Garcia, Richard B. Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasound biomicroscopyScleraOptical coherence tomographyIRIS (biosensor)MedicineCorneaOphthalmologyCiliary bodyUltrasoundAnterior Eye SegmentAnterior chamber angleCoronal planePars planaGlaucomaAnatomyRadiologyVisual acuityVitrectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical indications of anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) and ultrasound biomicroscopy in anterior segment imaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty patients were evaluated using AS-OCT and ultrasound biomicroscopy. RESULTS: AS-OCT was ideal for detailed imaging of structures from the surface of the eye to the iris plane. Ultrasound biomicroscopy was ideal for imaging structures from the surface of the eye to the anterior vitreous. CONCLUSION: AS-OCT is indicated for imaging the conjunctiva, sclera, cornea, and iris, screening the angle, and visualizing subconjunctival, corneal, and anterior chamber implants. Coronal imaging, unique to AC Cornea OCT (Ophthalmic Technologies Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada), graphically defines structures viewed on cross-sectional OCT. Ultrasound biomicroscopy is indicated for imaging the conjunctiva, sclera, iris, lens, and ciliary body, for tumor measurements, for light-and-dark tests in glaucoma, and for viewing subconjunctival, anterior chamber, posterior chamber, and pars plana implants.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations54
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retinaSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207