Assessing the utility of 2.5% phenylephrine for diagnostic pupillary dilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of phenylephrine to tropicamide produces any clinically significant change in pupil size during diagnostic eye examination. METHODS: Twenty healthy adults at the Washington University School of Medicine Eye Clinic were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized, crossover trial. Each had 3 dilating eye drop regimens administered to the left eye on separate days. Tropicamide (T) + proparacaine (PP) + phenylephrine (PE) (T+PP+PE) was considered the standard therapy, to which tropicamide alone (T alone) and tropicamide + proparacaine (T+PP) were compared against. Main outcome measures were postdilation pupil size and proportion of pupils able to achieve adequate clinical pupil dilation of >7 mm. Comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests and McNemar's test. RESULTS: Mean postdilation pupil size was 7.94 ± 0.78 mm, 7.64 ± 0.78 mm, and 7.48 ± 0.77 mm for T+PP+PE, T+PP, and T alone, respectively. T+PP+PE was statistically superior to T+PP (p = 0.004) and T alone (p < 0.001) with respect to postdilation pupil size. The proportion of pupils able to achieve adequate pupil dilation of >7 mm was 90%, 80%, and 70% for T+PP+PE, T+PP, and T alone, respectively. No statistical difference was observed in each regimen's ability to achieve adequate pupil dilation of >7 mm (T+PP+PE and T+PP: p = 0.47; T+PP+PE and T alone: p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: The addition of phenylephrine eye drops to tropicamide produced larger pupil dilation, but the magnitude of benefit was marginal and clinically insignificant in this young, healthy cohort. A single-dilating-agent regimen using tropicamide could be considered in routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".