Alternative Indications For Goniotomy In Pediatric Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of goniotomy as a first-line surgery in cases of open angle pe-diatric glaucoma, other than primary congenital, in which medical therapy had failed or had been judged to be not advisable. Methods. A non-comparative retrospective chart review of a series of gonio-tomies performed in children with refractory secondary glaucoma. Success was defined as an intraocular pressure (IOP) less or equal to 22 mmHg, without need for further surgical intervention with or without additional medical therapy. Results. 12 patients (16 eyes) with underlying diagnoses of Sturge Weber Syndrome, uveitis, infantile and traumatic glaucoma were included. The mean age at the first goniotomy was 5.2-year-old, with a mean follow-up of 35 months. Surgical success was achieved in 9 eyes (56%) with a mean IOP of 16.3 + 4.61mmHg (reduction of 16 mmHg, p<0.001). Complications included different degrees of hyphema and a small iris prolapse. Discussion. Although traditionally limited to management of congenital glaucoma, goniotomy is a relatively gentle and potentially useful first-line surgical procedure for children with refractory glaucoma different than congenital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".