OCULAR HYPERTENSION AFTER INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE (OZURDEX) SUSTAINED-RELEASE IMPLANT
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate ocular hypertension (OHT) after Ozurdex injection to determine the incidence of OHT, therapy for OHT, and any associative factors such as diagnosis, underlying glaucoma and therapy, or sequential Ozurdex injection(s). METHODS: Retrospective consecutive case series with patients receiving one or more intravitreal Ozurdex implantations at a tertiary care academic center. Ocular hypertension was defined as a single measurement of ≥30 mmHg or an increase of ≥10 mmHg from baseline. RESULTS: Ninety-four injections in 52 patients (59 eyes) were reviewed. Forty eyes received a single injection, and 19 eyes received multiple injections. Ocular hypertension developed in 14 patients (26.9%). Thirteen patients (25%) had preexisting glaucoma or suspicion of glaucoma, and 6 of these developed OHT. Glaucoma eye drops were initiated after 13 injections (13.8%). Invasive surgery for glaucoma was required in 3 patients (3.2%): all had glaucoma or suspicion of glaucoma (one case was related to neovascular glaucoma and unlikely related to steroid response after Ozurdex). There was no difference in relative intraocular pressure increase (i.e., difference between final follow-up or subsequent intravitreal injection vs. baseline) between single versus multiple Ozurdex injections (P = 0.883). CONCLUSION: Patients (26.9%) who received Ozurdex developed OHT. Glaucoma or glaucoma-suspicion factors were present in all patients who required invasive surgery for glaucoma. A greater proportion of patients who received multiple injections had an intraocular pressure elevation, but the relative intraocular pressure increase was not significant.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it