MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090144720 · doi:10.1016/j.ajoc.2020.100943

Posterior lens capsule neovascularization treated with anti-VEGF complicated by phacogenic uveitis

2020· article· en· W3090144720 on OpenAlexaff
Felicia Tai, Efrem D. Mandelcorn, Sohel Somani

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health SystemToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapsulotomyUveitisOphthalmologyRanibizumabVisual acuityCentral retinal vein occlusionSurgeryBevacizumabIntraocular lensMacular edemaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report a case of neovascularization of posterior capsule (NVPC) successfully treated with intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis) and neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) capsulotomy, followed by phacogenic uveitis. OBSERVATIONS: We report a systemically otherwise healthy 81-year-old male presenting with unilateral NVPC and iris (NVI) occurring five years after a central retinal vein occlusion. A single intravitreal injection of ranibizumab led to complete regression of NVPC and NVI within three weeks after which a Nd:YAG capsulotomy was performed. Two weeks later, the patient returned with a severe inflammatory reaction diagnosed as phacogenic uveitis and treated with surgical capsular bag/intraocular lens complex removal and peripheral pan-retinal photocoagulation. One-year follow-up demonstrated no recurrence of NVPC. Visual acuity remained at baseline of light perception. CONCLUSIONS: We acknowledge that intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment with Nd:YAG capsulotomy for NVPC is a rational option, but raise awareness to the rare possibility of phacogenic uveitis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case ReportsSame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207