ADVERSE EVENTS OF THE ARGUS II RETINAL PROSTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze and provide an overview of the incidence, management, and prevention of conjunctival erosion in Argus II clinical trial subjects and postapproval patients. METHODS: This retrospective analysis followed the results of 274 patients treated with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System between June 2007 and November 2017, including 30 subjects from the US and European clinical trials, and 244 patients in the postapproval phase. Results were gathered for incidence of a serious adverse event, incidence of conjunctival erosion, occurrence sites, rates of erosion, and erosion timing. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of subjects in the clinical trial subjects versus 83% of patients in the postapproval phase did not experience device- or surgery-related serious adverse events. In the postapproval phase, conjunctival erosion had an incidence rate of 6.2% over 5 years and 11 months. In 55% of conjunctival erosion cases, erosion occurred in the inferotemporal quadrant, 25% in the superotemporal quadrant, and 20% in both. Sixty percent of the erosion events occurred in the first 15 months after implantation, and 85% within the first 2.5 years. CONCLUSION: Reducing occurrence of conjunctival erosion in patients with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis requires identification and minimization of risk factors before and during implantation. Implementing inverted sutures at the implant tabs, use of graft material at these locations as well as Mersilene rather than nylon sutures, and accurate Tenon's and conjunctiva closure are recommended for consideration in all patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".