Corneal Laceration Associated With Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".