Clinical outcome study of a modified surgical technique for pterygium excision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pterygium is a common condition that has many and varied surgical management techniques. Our aim was to describe and evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified tissue-sparing surgical procedure for management of pterygium. Methods: This was a retrospective, clinical outcome study of 67 consecutive pterygium head excisions and mini inferior conjunctival autografts (PHEMICA), performed by a single senior surgeon over 7 years. The technique evaluated was a modified pterygium head removal and inferior conjunctival autograft, maximising host tissue preservation. Results: Group A (primary pterygia): 5.25% recurrence rate (3 of 57 eyes). Group B (recurrent pterygia): 30% recurrence rate (3 of 10 eyes). No major complications occurred. One partial autograft necrosis was noted (1.5%, 1 of 67 eyes), with full resolution. Interpretation: The described technique is fast, safe, and effective with a 5.25% recurrence rate in those with primary pterygia. It is not, however, recommended in the treatment of recurrent pterygia; this group of patients requires a more radical excision with a larger autograft and the use of adjuncts such as mitomycin C.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".