A Randomized Clinical Trial of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty Versus Argon Laser Trabeculoplasty in Patients With Pseudoexfoliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) versus argon laser trabeculoplasty (ALT) in lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension secondary to pseudoexfoliation. DESIGN: Multicentered randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 76 eyes from 60 patients with pseudoexfoliation and uncontrolled IOP were recruited from 5 Canadian academic institutions. Patients with prior laser trabeculoplasty, ocular surgery within 6 months, previous glaucoma surgery, an advanced visual field defect, current steroid use, and monocular patients were excluded. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to receive either 180-degree SLT or 180-degree ALT by a nonblocked randomization schedule stratified by center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was the change in IOP at 6 months versus baseline and secondary outcomes included change in number of glaucoma medications after laser. Baseline variables included age, sex, angle grade, angle pigmentation, and number of glaucoma medications. RESULTS: Of the 76 eyes, 45 eyes received SLT and 31 eyes received ALT. The overall age was 72.9 years (65% females). The baseline IOPs in the SLT and ALT groups were 23.1 and 25.2 mm Hg, respectively (P=0.03). The IOP reduction 6 months after SLT was -6.8 mm Hg and post-ALT was -7.7 mm Hg (P>0.05). The SLT group had reduced glaucoma medications by 0.16 medications at 6 months and the ALT group had no decrease in medications over the same time period (P=0.59). There were no postlaser IOP spikes in either group. DISCUSSION: ALT and SLT are equivalent in lowering IOP at 6 months posttreatment in patients with PXF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".