Pupil size with and without adrenaline with diclofenac use before cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether adrenaline in the irrigating solution is necessary when diclofenac eyedrops are used before cataract surgery. SETTING: Pasqua Hospital, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: In this prospective randomized masked study, all patients used diclofenac eyedrops 2 days preoperatively. The pupils were dilated with a wick soaked in a dilating solution containing diclofenac. Patients were divided into 2 groups. One group had 0.5 mL of 1:1000 adrenaline in 500.0 mL of fortified balanced salt solution (BSS Plus) (adrenaline group). The other group did not (no-adrenaline group). The horizontal diameter of the pupils was measured with calipers. RESULTS: The study included 207 patients. There were no surgical complications. In the adrenaline group, the mean pupil size was 8.19 mm +/- 0.86 (SD) before the first incision, 8.14 +/- 0.87 mm after phacoemulsification, and 8.14 +/- 0.85 mm after cortical removal. In the no-adrenaline group, the means were 8.19 +/- 0.87 mm, 7.94 +/- 0.99 mm, and 7.87 +/-1.03 mm, respectively. The mean pupil constriction was 0.05 +/- 0.21 mm in the adrenaline group and 0.33 +/- 0.43 mm in the no-adrenaline group. The difference was statistically significant (Mann-Whitney test). Further analysis of preoperative pupil size showed a significant difference for smaller pupils only. CONCLUSIONS: When diclofenac eyedrops were used before cataract surgery, the smaller preoperative pupils constricted significantly less when adrenaline was added to the irrigating solution. This was not true for larger pupils. Thus, adrenaline in the irrigating solution does not appear necessary in eyes with large preoperative pupils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".