Innovative alternatives in the surgical management of glaucoma with cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Glaucoma is the leading cause of irremediable blindness worldwide. The prevalence of glaucoma will continue to increase with the increased ageing of the global population. The only way to reduce the progression of vision loss due to glaucoma is to control the level of intraocular pressure (IOP). IOP control initially depends upon pharmaceutical interventions. The efficacy of IOP-lowering medications is limited by poor patient compliance, incorrect medication administration, ocular side effects and cost. When IOP-lowering medications fail to halt the progression of glaucoma, surgical intervention, such as trabeculectomy or glaucoma drainage device surgery, is indicated, but neither has been found completely satisfactory. Surgical interventions have a significant risk of complications that result in decreased vision.Areas covered: This article summarizes the design and function, as well as reviewing the efficacy, of various innovative, highly safe, surgical approaches to the treatment of glaucoma.Expert opinion: Recent treatment innovations have taken advantage of the fact that many patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma also have cataracts. Devices and procedures have been developed that are no more invasive than cataract surgery and that can be performed concurrently with cataract surgery. These IOP-lowering treatments have an excellent safety profile and minimize ocular tissue trauma.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".