European study of the efficacy of a cross-linked gel stent for the treatment of glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of a cross-linked gel stent (XEN45) with or without cataract surgery in the treatment of glaucoma patients. SETTING: Five university hospitals. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with glaucoma inadequately controlled by treatment or poor compliance or intolerance to topical therapy were included. Patients were divided into those who had an implant only (Solo Group; phakic and pseudophakic patients) and those who had an implant combined with cataract surgery (Combo Group). Differences in mean intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of medications between the baseline preoperative visit and study end (12 months), and the rate of qualified and complete success, were evaluated. RESULTS: The Solo Group comprised 115 glaucoma patients (43 phakic and 72 pseudophakic) and the Combo Group comprised 56 patients. Compared with baseline, mean IOP (23.9 ± 7.6 to 15.5 ± 3.9) and number of medications (3.0 ± 1.1 to 0.5 ± 1.0) decreased significantly at 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for both). A >20% and >30% reduction in IOP from baseline was achieved by 72.3% and 52.6% of patients, respectively. IOP at 1 week postoperatively was a predictor of success, and the needling rate was inversely correlated with early postoperative IOP. The number of preoperative medications and patient age were not significantly associated with failure. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of a cross-linked gel stent alone or combined with phacoemulsification might be effective and safe in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma, with a substantial reduction in IOP and number of medications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".