MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599437908 · doi:10.1097/icb.0000000000000576

MASSIVE SUBRETINAL GAS AFTER VITRECTOMY SURGERY: MECHANISM AND MANAGEMENT

2017· article· en· W2599437908 on OpenAlex
Mark E. Seamone, Darrell R. Lewis, David R.P. Almeida, Netan Choudhry, R. Rishi Gupta

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

VenueRetinal Cases & Brief Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrectomyPars planaMedicineRetinal detachmentOphthalmologyRetinalMacular holeComplicationSurgeryVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe the complication of subretinal gas after pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, as well as its management. METHODS: The presence of subretinal gas was noted on postoperative Day 1 after pars plana vitrectomy for a chronic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Resolution of subretinal gas was facilitated by an infusion line and external sclerotomy to expand the vitreous cavity. Residual subretinal gas was removed through a posterior retinotomy after fluid-air exchange. RESULTS: This technique resulted in the successful evacuation of subretinal gas, allowing for chorioretinal adhesion and reattachment of the retina. CONCLUSION: Subretinal gas can rarely occur after pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. This complication can be successfully managed by way of external drainage, followed by evacuation of residual gas through fluid-air exchange and posterior retinotomy.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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