Research on intraoperative iris behavior in rabbits treated with tamsulosin and finasteride.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate intraoperative iris behavior during some phacoemulsification maneuvers in rabbits treated with tamsulosin or finasteride. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An experimental study was conducted on 26 Metis male rabbits aged 1.5 - 2 years, body weight between 3.4 and 5.6 kg, divided into three groups: Group 1 - Control, 6 rabbits; Group 2 - tamsulosin, 10 rabbits; Group 3 - finasteride, 10 rabbits. Dose calculation was performed according to body surface area ratio man/rabbit, taking into account the median lethal dose LD50. Surgery study in rabbits was done over two days by the same specialist using an adapted protocol. He was not informed before or during surgeries which group the animal belonged to, the order being random with a quasi-uniform distribution. Valid results for a modified iris behavior were obtained from two steps of the procedure (cannula irrigation maneuver and irrigation-aspiration). The iris billowing was graded from 0 to 3, according to severity. RESULTS: The risk of intraoperative iris billowing was higher in rabbits included in tamsulosin group [OR=8.33 (CI 95% 0.63-110.09)], but insignificant statistically compare with control group (p= 0.13). In rabbits treated with finasteride the risk of intraoperative iris billowing is increased compared with those without treatment [OR=11.6 (CI 95% 0.92-147.6)], but insignificant statistically (p= 0.11). CONCLUSION: In our research, we showed an increased risk of intraoperative iris billowing in rabbits treated with finasteride, almost similar with those obtained in rabbits treated with tamsulosin. Further experimental or clinical studies to confirm the role of finasteride in the etiology of intraoperative floppy iris syndrome in humans are needed. Hippokratia 2015, 19 (1): 20-24.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".