MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193483552 · doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20220025

Open book technique for conjunctival tumors: a surgical approach to the fornix

2022· letter· en· W3193483552 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge Agi, David Sia, Ezekiel Weis

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFornixMedicineCanthusSurgeryDehiscenceEyelidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical management of large tumors involving the conjunctival fornix can be challenging, as exposure and clear margins may be difficult to achieve. In this case series, we report our initial experience with the open book technique in 4 patients. Through a canthotomy and cantholysis, this surgical approach provides a wide surgical field and facilitates fornix reconstruction post large tumor excision. In our series, one patient had a lateral canthus dehiscence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos Brasileiros de OftalmologiaSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207