[Surgery for idiopathic and secondary epiretinal membranes: functional results and complications].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual outcome after epiretinal membrane surgery. MATERIAL: and method: Retrospective study of 50 consecutive epiretinal membranes (ERM) (23 idiopathic and 27 secondary) with 12 to 42-month follow-up (mean 24 months). Functional evaluations were performed before and after surgery according to the idiopathic or secondary nature of the epiretinal membranes. RESULTS: For idiopathic ERM, vision improved by more than two lines in 43% of the eyes (33% after ERM surgery alone and 55% after ERM followed by cataract surgery) with final visual acuity of 4/10 for 66% of the patients (58% and 82% respectively); there was visual degradation for the two ERM on highly myopic eyes. For the secondary ERM, vision improved by more than 2 lines for 41% of the eyes and final visual acuity of 4/10 for 33% of the patients; visual degradation for almost all ERM secondary to uveitis was associated with preoperative cystoid macular edema. CONCLUSION: After surgery for idiopathic or secondary ERM, visual acuity is good with the exception of the idiopathic ERM on highly myopic eyes and of the uveitic ERM with preoperative cystoid macular edema. Progression of cataract often perturbs visual outcome analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".