MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159983993 · doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00647-7

Occult wound leak diagnosed by ultrasound biomicroscopy in patients with postoperative hypotony

2001· article· en· W2159983993 on OpenAlexaff
Sicco G.W. thoe Schwartzenberg, Charles J. Pavlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasound biomicroscopyMedicineOccultSurgeryLeakOphthalmologyGlaucomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe the ability of high-frequency ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) to diagnose occult wound leaks as a cause for hypotony after cataract surgery. METHODS: Six patients with persistent hypotony after cataract surgery were sent for UBM examination. Slitlamp examination and gonioscopy of the 6 eyes had not revealed a cause for the hypotony. RESULTS: Ultrasound biomicroscopy showed subtle wound separation with shallow conjunctival elevation at the site of the cataract wound in the 6 patients. Two eyes had surgical repair of the subconjunctival wound leak, and the other 4 were treated medically. In the 2 eyes with surgically repaired wounds, the hypotony cleared after wound closure. Of the 4 medically treated eyes, hypotony resolved in 2 and 1 had a recurrence of hypotony. The other 2 eyes had fluctuating intraocular pressure for an extended period. CONCLUSIONS: Hypotony after cataract surgery occurred in 6 eyes due to subtle wound leaks difficult to detect by clinical observation. Ultrasound biomicroscopy can be a helpful aid to clinical examination in detecting these leaks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207