MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983482722 · doi:10.1097/iop.0000000000001509

Corneal Laceration Associated With Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty

2019· article· en· W2983482722 on OpenAlexaff
Marissa K. Shoji, Ann Q. Tran, Neda Nikpoor, Wendy W. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlepharoplastyEyelidSurgeryCorneal ulcerationCorneaOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 64-year-old woman underwent bilateral upper eyelid blepharoplasty and subsequently presented with decreased vision at her first postoperative visit 1 week later. She was found to have an 8-mm partial-thickness corneal laceration of her left eye and underwent immediate surgical laceration repair. The laceration etiology was thought to be related to damage from the initial blepharoplasty incision or Bovie cautery tip-induced laceration. After laceration repair, she had residual astigmatism and corneal scarring leading to poor vision. Corneal injuries, including abrasions and perforations, are rare complications of blepharoplasty, and the case in this study is the first report of corneal laceration following blepharoplasty. Corneal perforations and lacerations can lead to significant damage and vision loss, indicating a need for careful attention to surgical technique and instrument placement intraoperatively, routine use of corneal protectors even during superficial aesthetic procedures such as blepharoplasties, and comprehensive postoperative patient instructions.A 64-year-old woman who underwent an upper eyelid blepharoplasty sustained a partial-thickness corneal laceration of her OS, which required emergent repair and resulted in persistent vision loss secondary to large corneal scar.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207