Refractive and visual outcomes after surgery for pediatric traumatic cataract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe refractive and visual outcomes of pediatric traumatic cataract requiring surgery and evaluate the factors influencing success. SETTING: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Charts of children having lensectomy for traumatic cataract between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2015, were reviewed for demographic information, visual and refractive outcomes, complications, and surgical details. RESULTS: One hundred six children (mean age 7.6 years ± 3.9 [SD]) were included. The median follow-up was 41 months (range 3 to 155 months). Seventy-nine children had open-globe injuries and 27 had closed-globe injuries. Patients with open-globe injuries were younger than those with closed-globe injuries (mean age 6.9 versus 10.4 years; P < .05). The final corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 20/40 or better in 47 children. In the 94 children who had intraocular lens placement, 54% with open-globe injuries and 55% with closed-globe injuries achieved a mean absolute prediction error of 1.0 diopter or less in the early postoperative period. Open-globe injuries and amblyopia were associated with worse visual outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 2.8 and P = .03 versus OR, 2.4 and P = .04) and refractive outcomes (OR, 3.1 and P = .02 versus OR, 3.8 and P = .04). Age younger than 5 years was associated with worse refractive outcomes (OR, 2.88; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Children requiring surgery for traumatic cataract can have good visual and refractive outcomes. Those with open-globe and those with closed-globe injuries both had good early postoperative refractive accuracy. Sixty-three percent of children with closed-globe injuries attained a CDVA of 20/40 or better at the final follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".