Same-Day Bilateral Glaucoma Laser Treatments in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze trends in bilateral, same-day laser iridotomies, and trabeculoplasties in Ontario over the last decade. METHODS: Ontario Health Insurance Plan billing service claims between 2000 and 2013 were analyzed for the yearly number of glaucoma laser procedures. The annual number of Ontarians with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) was estimated by applying composite prevalence curves to published population data and the yearly number of procedures per 1000 Ontarians with POAG was calculated. RESULTS: The volume of same-day bilateral trabeculoplasties increased from 15.3 per 1000 with POAG in 2000 to 74.7 in 2013 (4.9-fold). The proportion that were same-day bilateral procedures increased from 22.7% in 2000 to 40.2% in 2004 (76.9% increase) and remained stable from 2009 to 2013, reaching 38.5% in 2013. The number of same-day bilateral laser iridotomies increased from 3126 in 2000 to 11,716 in 2013 (3.75-fold). The proportion of iridotomies that were bilateral increased from 39% in 2000 to 54.6% in 2006 (40% increase) and remained stable from 2006 to 2013, reaching 56.7% in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in same-day bilateral trabeculoplasties coincided with the introduction of selective laser trabeculoplasty. The proportion of this practice remained constant for the last 3 years of the study period. In 2013, 56.7% of iridotomies and 38.5% of trabeculoplasties were performed as same-day bilateral procedures. We recommend comparison studies between same-day and sequential laser therapies to assess complication rates and patient satisfaction to provide an evidence-based treatment approach, as there are limited data to support this practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".