MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507183589 · doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1188

Retinal Injury Secondary to Laser Pointers in Pediatric Patients

2016· article· en· W2507183589 on OpenAlexaff
Kunyong Xu, Eric K. Chin, Polly A. Quiram, John B. Davies, D. Wilkin Parke, David R.P. Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser pointerMedicineRetinal pigment epitheliumOptometryFovealOphthalmologyMetamorphopsiaOptical coherence tomographyRetinalVisual acuityLaserOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case report describes 4 male children (age, 9-16) who had laser-related retinal injury to the macula of 1 eye or both eyes due to the mishandling of the laser pointer devices at a single vitreoretinal clinical practice. The presenting symptoms associated with laser pointer injury include central vision loss, central scotoma, and metamorphopsia. Clinical findings of laser-related retinal injury include reduced visual acuity, disruption of the photoreceptor ellipsoid zone, retinal pigment epithelium atrophy, and choroidal neovascular membrane formation. Disruption of the foveal ellipsoid zone (photoreceptor inner segment/outer segment layer) is the most common finding on optical coherence tomography imaging. Three patients had potential irreversible vision loss. Laser pointers are readily available and appropriate use of laser pointers in the pediatric population must be emphasized due to the potential irreversible retinal injury. Health professionals, school teachers, and parents should raise public awareness of this emerging public health issue by educating children about the dangers of laser pointers. Laser pointer devices among children should be discouraged and limited due to the possibility of permanent harm to themselves and others. Legislation and laws may be required to better control the sale and use of these devices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicOcular and Laser Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207