Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the surgical indications, outcomes, and complications with the use of modified capsular tension rings (CTRs) during cataract surgery.Ivey Eye Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.Systematic review.A systematic review of databases was conducted for studies related to the use of modified CTRs during cataract surgery that were published between 1992 and 2015. Primary research papers on human participants published in English were screened. The surgical indications, outcomes, and complications of modified CTR use during cataract surgery were compiled and analyzed.The search identified 6035 records from published and gray literature. After screening, 10 studies involving 320 eyes were included in the systematic review. The most common surgical indications for modified CTR use were Marfan syndrome (40.3%), idiopathic zonular insufficiency (27.2%), and previous ocular trauma (22.8%). The weighted average of indicated zonular insufficiency was 173 degrees, with 75.4% of eyes achieving visual acuity better than 20/40 postoperatively. The use of modified CTRs resulted in a reduction in intraocular lens (IOL) decentration and tilt. Vitrectomy during surgery was required in 19.8% of eyes. The rate of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) was 41.1%. Intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation, suture breakage, and uveitis were the most common postoperative complications.The use of modified CTRs during cataract surgery was associated with causes of large and progressive zonular insufficiency. Use of the CTR produced good postoperative visual outcome and reduced IOL decentration and/or tilt. The most common complications were PCO, IOP elevation, and suture breakage.None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.756 | 0.446 |
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".