MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038115939 · doi:10.2147/opth.s178348

<p>XEN<sup>®</sup> Gel Stent: A Comprehensive Review on Its Use as a Treatment Option for Refractory Glaucoma</p>

2020· review· en· W3038115939 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Maria Fea, Georges M. Durr, Paola Marolo, Lorenza Malinverni, Mario A. Economou, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersAllergan
KeywordsMedicineDry needlingGlaucomaOphthalmologyBiocompatibilityStentGlaucoma surgerySurgeryMaterials sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The XEN Gel Microstent is a subconjunctival microinvasive glaucoma surgical device developed with the aim of improving the predictability and safety profile of bleb-forming glaucoma surgical procedures. The stent is a hydrophilic tube composed of a porcine gel cross-linked with glutaraldehyde with good stability and biocompatibility with minimal tissue reaction. This device has demonstrated promising outcomes with fewer risks compared to traditional surgeries. The aim of the review is to present early studies on different designs of the XEN Gel Stent, to summarize different surgical techniques of implantation and to analyze more comprehensively the results, complications and rates of needling of the commercially available device (Xen 45). The review will address separately special cases (PXG, UVG, ICE, congenital glaucoma) and describe small series and case reports.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207