MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521713065 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000003085

Ophthalmologic Outcomes Following Fronto-Orbital Advancement for Unicoronal Craniosynostosis

2016· review· en· W2521713065 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnisometropiaStrabismusStrabismus surgeryAstigmatismCochrane LibraryExotropiaSurgeryOphthalmologyVisual acuityRandomized controlled trialRefractive error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unicoronal craniosynostosis predisposes to ophthalmologic abnormalities such as strabismus, astigmatism, and amblyopia. The authors explored the ophthalmologic outcomes following fronto-orbital advancement (FOA). A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Included studies reported postoperative rates of strabismus, astigmatism, and/or amblyopia. Two independent reviewers performed screening and extracted data including preoperative rates, laterality and severity of findings, need for ocular surgery, and timing of FOA. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Methodologic Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale and American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence Rating Scale for Therapeutic Studies. A total of 231 abstracts were screened. Sixteen articles were eligible for qualitative synthesis including 13 case series and 3 retrospective comparative studies. Nine studies contained both preoperative and postoperative data, but for strabismus only. Postoperative prevalence of strabismus was 19% to 100%. Rates increased in 4 studies and decreased in 3. Incidences of new and resolved cases of strabismus were 0% to 60% and 0% to 33%, respectively. Twenty-five percent to 100% of patients required strabismus surgery. Postoperative rates of astigmatism were 15% to 92%. Fourteen percent to 41% had clinically significant anisometropia, predisposing to amblyopia. The postoperative prevalence of amblyopia was 3% to 56%. In summary, FOA does not appear to reduce rates of strabismus, astigmatism, or amblyopia. In addition, surgery carries the risk of iatrogenic strabismus. Earlier intervention and endoscopic techniques may reduce prevalence and severity, but additional research is required.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.311 · 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