Thrombocytopenia and the Risks of Intraocular Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In thrombocytopenia, a hemorrhagic diathesis is usually present due to a low platelet count and has been related to the development of cataracts and retinopathy. The concomitant administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can increase the hemorrhagic diathesis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of thrombocytopenia during and after intraocular surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of medical files of patients who had undergone cataract and glaucoma filtering surgery and were diagnosed as having thrombocytopenia between 1994--1995 and 1998--1999 was conducted. Eight patients with a total of 11 surgical procedures were included in this study. RESULTS: Hemorrhagic complications occurred in 2 of the 11 procedures, for an incidence of 18%. These 2 cases are described in detail. CONCLUSIONS: The current study confirms that thrombocytopenia is a significant risk factor for perioperative bleeding in ocular surgery. A routine questionnaire should be completed before ocular surgery and a complete blood cell count obtained in suspect cases. Consultation with a hematologist is warranted in cases of thrombocytopenia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".