MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326242809 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e31823f8fb1

Stromal Lamellar Dissection of the Donor Disc

2012· article· en· W2326242809 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Lichtinger, Sonia N. Yeung, Peter Kim, Maoz D. Amiran, Rajesh Sinha, David S. Rootman

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalCNIB FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamellar structureDissection (medical)Stromal cellChemistryMedicineAnatomyCrystallographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe a surgical technique to decrease the incidence and potential complications of an eccentric trephination and improve graft adherence during Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. METHODS: Technique description. RESULTS: After resection of the anterior lamella with the microkeratome, the corneoscleral rim in the artificial anterior chamber (AC) is brought under view of the operating microscope and the deep dissection plane of the microkeratome is extended 360 degrees as far peripherally as permitted by the Moria artificial anterior chamber using a crescent blade and 0.12-mm Colibri forceps. The central stroma is marked with gentian violet, and the donor button is released from the AC and then carefully placed and centered on the punching block endothelial side up using the gentian violet mark as a guide and trephined to the desired diameter. The donor graft may then be inserted by the surgeon's preferred technique. CONCLUSIONS: This simple technique allows the surgeon to consistently increase the lamellar dissection diameter while reducing the peripheral graft thickness, which becomes particularly important when the trephination is eccentric. This technique may lead to improved donor adherence and a decrease in the incidence of donor lenticule configuration -related complications.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207