Survey of the American Glaucoma Society Membership on Current Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement and Postoperative Corticosteroid Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess practice patterns and opinions of glaucoma specialists regarding glaucoma drainage device tube shunt placement and post-operative anti-inflammatory medication use. We also assess the perceived need for a randomized control trial to compare them. Patients and Methods: An online survey was distributed to a group of glaucoma specialists from the American Glaucoma Society via the American Glaucoma Society forum from April to August 2021. Results: One hundred and twenty-eight responses were included. Ninety percent placed tubes in the anterior chamber. Sixty-one percent reported that evidence suggested the superiority of sulcus tube placement over the anterior chamber, whereas 34% reported there was not enough evidence to suggest superiority of either in preventing endothelial cell loss. Comparing these techniques for intraocular pressure control, 49% reported evidence suggested sulcus tube placement superiority whereas 46% reported there was not enough evidence. Over 40% of respondents reported that they were either unfamiliar with literature or that there was not enough evidence to support the superiority of difluprednate 0.05% over prednisolone 1% for post-operative use in preventing endothelial cell loss and for intraocular pressure control. Ninety percent and 81% of respondents respectively would benefit from randomized control trials comparing outcomes of anterior chamber vs sulcus tube placement and post-operative corticosteroid usage. Conclusion: Most glaucoma specialists surveyed place glaucoma drainage device tube in the anterior chamber over the sulcus. A randomized control trial to determine optimal tube placement and post-operative anti-inflammatory medication use for preventing endothelial cell loss would change current glaucoma drainage device practice patterns.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".