Dose and administration of intracameral moxifloxacin for prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis
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 review current and past practices of intracameral antibiotic administration for infection prophylaxis in cataract surgery; to review the benefits and liabilities of available prophylactic drugs, dosage determination, and administration protocols; and to devise an optimum dose and administration protocol for intracameral moxifloxacin. SETTING: Humber River Hospital and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of treatment modality. METHODS: This study consisted of a detailed review of the history, drugs, and methods of intracameral prophylaxis and microbiological and pharmacodynamics analysis of options. A review of potential drug sources and doses was performed and 1 drug, dose, and administration protocol was selected. The current method's adoption reasons are described followed by the authors' experience. RESULTS: A single infection in 3430 cases occurred with a moxifloxacin-resistant strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis when moxifloxacin 100 mcg in 0.1 mL was used. Increasing the dose and changing the administration technique resulted in no infections in 4601 cases and no detrimental side effects or complications. CONCLUSION: Intracameral moxifloxacin prepared by dilution of 3 cc moxifloxacin 0.5% (Vigamox) with 7 cc balanced salt solution and with the administration of 0.3 to 0.4 cc (450 to 600 mcg.) as the final step in cataract surgery via the side port after the main incision has been sealed and hydrated showed advantages over alternative intracameral antibiotic prophylactic methods, with minimum risk. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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