Bilateral simultaneous postoperative endophthalmitis: review of cases reported over the past 50 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".