MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combined Mitomycin C Application and Free Flap Conjunctival Autograft in Pterygium Surgery

2003· article· en· W4237772778 on OpenAlexaff
Fani Segev, Simona Jaeger-Roshu, Noa Gefen-Carmi, Ehud I. Assia

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePterygiumMitomycin CSurgeryComplicationEye diseaseScleraHematomaOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To evaluate the long-term postoperative outcome and complication rate of combined intraoperative low-dose mitomycin C application and free conjunctival autograft for the treatment of pterygium. Methods In a prospective, consecutive, noncomparative case series, a series of 46 consecutive patients (50 eyes) with primary pterygium (43 eyes) or recurrent pterygium (7 eyes) were studied. The patients' ages ranged from 23.0 to 80.0 years (mean, 53.4 years). All patients underwent pterygium excision combined with intraoperative low-dose mitomycin C application (0.02% for 2 minutes) and free conjunctival autograft. The mean follow-up period was 29.2 months (range 12 to 41 months). The main outcome measures were recurrence of pterygium and postoperative complications. Results Pterygium recurred to a small extent (0.5 mm) in one eye (2%) of a patient with recurrent pterygium. There were no intraoperative complications. Subconjunctival graft hematoma appeared soon after surgery and resolved spontaneously in five eyes (10%). One eye developed transient high intraocular pressure without optic nerve or visual field defect, and one eye developed mild symblepharon. There were no sight-threatening complications or serious side effects. Conclusions By applying a single low dose of mitomycin C combined with free conjunctival autograft during pterygium excision, the recurrence rate of pterygium can be markedly reduced.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207