Surgically induced corneal refractive change following glaucoma surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare surgically induced corneal refractive change following trabeculectomy with the nonpenetrating trabecular filtering surgeries with and without implant. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. METHODS: A consecutive series of 34 patients (34 eyes) with uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma had trabecular filtering surgery. Patients were assigned randomly to receive viscocanalostomy (12 patients), nonpenetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) with T-flux implant (10 patients), and trabeculectomy (12 patients). Autokeratometry and computerized corneal videokeratoscopy with the Topcon KR-7000P autokeratorefractometer were performed preoperatively and 1 day and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively to analyze surgically induced keratometric and topographic astigmatism. RESULTS: Thirty patients (11 trabeculectomy, 11 viscocanalostomy, and 8 NPDS with nonabsorbable implant) completed the study. Mean patient age was 61.7 years +/- 10.9 (SD) (range 37 to 81) and did not differ among groups. Postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) levels and visual acuity (logMAR values) did not differ among groups compared with preoperative levels. Average induced astigmatism was lower in the NPDS group than the trabeculectomy group at postoperative month 3 and 6 based on autokeratometry values (P =.023 and.042, respectively). Nonpenetrating surgeries resulted in less induced astigmatism in the early postoperative period and less against-the-rule shift over 6 months. CONCLUSION: Despite larger flap size and surgical area, nonpenetrating trabecular surgeries induced less astigmatism than trabeculectomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".