Effect of intracameral epinephrine on heart rate, post‐operative ocular hypertension, and long‐term outcome following canine phacoemulsification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of intrsacameral epinephrine on heart rate, blood pressure, post-operative ocular hypertension, and complications following canine phacoemulsification. PROCEDURES: A prospective, double-blinded, controlled trial was carried out using 30 client-owned dogs undergoing phacoemulsification. Eyes were randomly assigned to a treatment group receiving intracameral (IC) epinephrine (n = 31) or balanced salt solution (n = 25) at the beginning of surgery. Heart rate, post-operative intraocular pressures, and outcomes were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: No adverse reactions to IC epinephrine or saline were observed. Post-operative ocular hypertension developed at the 2 and/or 4 hours pressure reading in 35% and 46% in the epinephrine and saline groups, respectively (P = .5072). There were 9.7% and 23.1% eyes that developed complications in the IC epinephrine and saline groups, respectively (P = .2373). CONCLUSIONS: Intracameral epinephrine is safe to use, and non-significant decreases in post-operative ocular hypertension and long-term complications were observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".