AB075. Population trends in adult strabismus surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To review the trends in adult strabismus procedures in Ontario from 2000–2014. Methods: A population based, retrospective data analysis was conducted. Ontario Health Insurance Plan billing claims for strabismus procedures were collected and subdivided by number of muscles repaired, the use of adjustable sutures and repeat procedures, adjusted by the total adult population. The number of Ophthalmologists performing adult strabismus surgery was also analyzed, subdivided by high volume and low volume surgeons. Results: From 2000–2014, per 100,000 adult population, the number of total strabismus surgeries in Ontario increased 29.1%; single muscle surgery increased 25.0%, two muscle surgery increased 46.3%, and three or more muscle surgeries increased 8.3%. During the study period, strabismus procedures using adjustable sutures increased 26.1% and repeat procedures increased 65.1%. The number of surgeons performing adult strabismus surgery decreased 21.7% from 2000–2014. In 2014, 88.4% of surgeries were performed by 29.8% of all of surgeons who performed adult strabismus surgery. Conclusions: From 2000–2014, more strabismus surgery was performed in adults by fewer surgeons from 2000–2014. The number of adult strabismus surgeries in Ontario increased since 2000, including procedures using adjustable sutures and repeat procedures. These changes may be due to increases in healthcare funding and an increased awareness of the functional and psychosocial benefits of strabismus surgery.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".