Intraoperative floppy-iris syndrome associated with α1-adrenoreceptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of intraoperative floppy-iris syndrome (IFIS) in men exposed to tamsulosin and men exposed to alfuzosin and evaluate the effect of IFIS on the complication rate of cataract surgery. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada. METHODS: The medical charts of 64 men (92 eyes) who had phacoemulsification cataract surgery between June 2005 and July 2006 and reported having used tamsulosin or alfuzosin at their initial visit for cataract evaluation were reviewed. The presence or absence of IFIS, potential confounding clinical covariates, duration of surgery, and complications were noted. The history of taking an alpha1-antagonist was verified. To address the main objective of the study, only patients who had exclusively used tamsulosin or alfuzosin were included. For the secondary objective, all eligible patients were included even if they had received more than one alpha1-antagonist in the past. RESULTS: Of men exclusively exposed to tamsulosin (22) or alfuzosin (13), 86.4% and 15.4%, respectively, developed IFIS (P<.001). The adjusted odds ratio of IFIS in patients exposed to tamsulosin compared to those exposed to alfuzosin was 32.15 (95% confidence interval, 2.74-377.11). Eyes with IFIS had a higher risk for complications (focal iris stromal atrophy, transient postoperative hypertension, major iris trauma, posterior capsule break with vitreous loss, zonular dehiscence, postoperative cystoid macular edema) than eyes without IFIS (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Men exposed to tamsulosin had a significantly higher risk for developing IFIS than men exposed to alfuzosin. Intraoperative floppy-iris syndrome significantly increased the complication rate of cataract surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".