MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bilateral simultaneous postoperative endophthalmitis: review of cases reported over the past 50 years

2021· review· en· W4200401499 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Yuan Chen, Susan Ruyu Qi, Steve A. Arshinoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsArup Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndophthalmitisStaphylococcus epidermidisEtiologySurgeryPseudomonas aeruginosaCataract surgeryGeneral surgeryStaphylococcus aureusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed retrospective analysis and literature review were conducted for all previously published reports of bilateral simultaneous postoperative endophthalmitis (BSPOE) since 1970. There have been 7 (9, with 2 currently being reported elsewhere) cases of BSPOE after immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) reported over 50 years. Generally, in these cases, the surgical protocol recommended by the International Society of Bilateral Cataract Surgeons ( i SBCS) was breached or uncertain. Bacterial causes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (3), Staphylococcus epidermidis (3), and Burkholderia cepacia complex (1). One case showed negative results for bacterial infection and 1 was not determined. Visual recovery was light perception, or worse, for Pseudomonas cases, generally good for Staphylococcus and Burkholderia cases, and mixed in cases of unknown etiology. Therefore, BSPOE is rare and causes vary. Strict adherence to the i SBCS General Principles of Excellence in ISBCS 2009 surgical protocol and care with operating room construction seem to considerably lessen the risk.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207