MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cataract surgery results after pars plana vitrectomy

2003· review· en· W2161243732 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrectomyPars planaMedicinePhacoemulsificationOphthalmologyIntraocular lensCataract surgeryVisual acuityPosterior segment of eyeballComorbidityRetinal detachmentRetinalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous refinements in vitreoretinal surgical techniques and an increasing number of posterior segment disorders are being successfully managed with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). This has resulted in an increase in the number of vitrectomized eyes seen by cataract surgeons. Cataract surgery in previously vitrectomized eyes has been reported to be more challenging than in eyes without previous vitrectomy. Special considerations and precautions are often required before, during, and after the surgery to successfully address these challenges. Several studies have reported that phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation after PPV is a relatively safe procedure that can improve visual acuity and quality of life. The extent of visual improvement may be limited only by retinal comorbidity.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.230 · 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