MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527986731 · doi:10.2147/opth.s116314

Central cortical cleanup and zonular deficiency

2016· editorial· en· W2527986731 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad M. Mansour, Rafic Antonios, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complete removal of the cortex has been advocated to prevent posterior capsular opacification but carries the risk of zonular dehiscence, hence there is a need for a safe maximal cortical cleanup technique in eyes with severe diffuse zonulopathy in subjects above age 90. METHODS: We used bimanual central cortical cleaning by elevating central fibers and aspirating them toward the periphery. Peripheral cortical fibers were removed passively only when they became loose due to copious irrigation. A one-piece foldable implant was inserted without a capsular tension ring. Postoperative corticosteroid drops were used. RESULTS: This technique was safely performed in a dozen eyes with severe pseudo-exfoliation or brunescent cataract with weak zonules. Posterior capsular rupture, iritis, vitreous loss, and lens subluxation were not observed. Moderate capsular phimosis occurred but with maintained central vision. CONCLUSION: The dogma of "complete cortical cleanup" in severe zonulopathy needs to be revisited in favor of a clear visual axis with maximal preservation of the damaged zonules. This technique is ideal in patients above age 90 where posterior capsular opacification and late dislocation of intraocular lens-capsule bag complex are unlikely to occur until several years postoperatively.

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 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)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207