Cataract and glaucoma surgery: Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation versus trabeculectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) versus trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (trab) in combination with cataract surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the 6-month results of patients undergoing phacoemulsification (phaco) with either ECP or trab. The primary outcome was mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 6 months; secondary outcomes were change in glaucoma medications, visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, and postoperative complications. Complete success was a target IOP of <21 mmHg and >6 mmHg without glaucoma medications. Qualified success was target IOP achieved through glaucoma medications. RESULTS: < 0.05). The rate of postoperative complications was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: At 6 months, ECP-phaco demonstrated similar improvements in IOP and visual acuity compared to trab-phaco. However, ECP-phaco patients had higher incidences of immediate postoperative IOP spikes and anterior chamber inflammation as well as requiring additional medications postoperatively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".