Objective and subjective outcomes of strabismus surgery in Graves' orbitopathy: a prospective multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the change and interrelationship of the field of binocular single vision (BSV) and the quality of life (QoL), tested with two different tools, after one or two strabismus surgeries in patients with Graves' orbitopathy (GO). METHODS: Prospectively, consecutive patients with GO who were scheduled for their first strabismus surgery were recruited from five centres specialized in the treatment of GO. One week preoperatively and 3 months after the last operation, a full ophthalmic and orthoptic examination was performed. Change in field of BSV, GO-QoL and thyroid eye disease-QoL (TED-QoL) was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 59 met all the eligibility criteria of whom 15 underwent two strabismus operations. The median (interquartile range) preoperative score of the field of BSV was 0 (0-0), which improved to 73 (53-85) after the correction(s) (p < 0.001). After the first surgery, a significant higher score of the field of BSV was found in the patients who underwent one operation (76; 60-86) compared with those who underwent two 0 (0-63) operations (p < 0.001). After the second surgery, this score increased to 62 (40-76; p = 0.05). A moderate correlation was found between the score of the field of BSV and the GO-QoL visual functioning (VF) questionnaires (r = 0.485; p < 0.001). Both the GO-QoL and TED-QoL for VF and appearance (AP) showed significantly higher scores after the treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After strabismus surgery in GO patients, both the field of BSV and quality of life questionnaires increase. In approximately 30% of the patients, an additional strabismus surgery is performed. This second surgery significantly expands the field of BSV and the quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".