Prevalence and Predictors of Hering’s Response in Müller’s Muscle-conjunctival Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determine the prevalence and predictors of Hering's response following Muller's muscle-conjunctival resection (MMCR). METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients undergoing unilateral MMCR were recruited in this prospective, multicenter, cohort study. Margin-reflex distance-1 (MRD1) of both eyelids was recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. One hundred forty-three variables were investigated as potential predictors of a late postoperative (≥3 months) Hering's response using regression analyses. Main outcome measures were Hering's response (≥0.5 mm descent of the unoperated eyelid from baseline), and a clinically relevant Hering's response (descent of the unoperated from baseline to a MRD1 ≤ 2.0 mm, or descent from baseline such that the MRD1 of the unoperated eyelid became >1 mm lower than the operated eyelid). RESULTS: Twenty-four (32.0%) patients had a late postoperative Hering's response, but only 6 (8.0%) responses were clinically relevant. A Hering's response at the immediate (OR 16.24, p = 0.02) and 1-week postoperative (OR 8.94, p = 0.04) timepoints predicted a late postoperative response. However, the presence (OR 7.84, p = 0.07) and amplitude (OR 8.13, p = 0.06) of a preoperative phenylephrine Hering's response did not predict a late postoperative response. Of the 10 patients with a clinically relevant phenylephrine Hering's response, only 1 demonstrated a clinically relevant response late postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Unilateral MMCR induces a clinically relevant Hering's response in 8% of patients. A preoperative phenylephrine Hering's response does not predict a late postoperative Hering's response. Therefore, when unilateral phenylephrine testing unmasks contralateral blepharoptosis, only the side with blepharoptosis at baseline should be operated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".