Relative efficacy of intracameral moxifloxacin injection methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the amount of moxifloxacin remaining in the anterior chamber (AC), immediately after its injection using 3 current injection methods, assuming mixing and fluid exchange with the AC contents during injection of the drug, and to determine the most desirable injection method. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences and Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. DESIGN: Mathematical modeling. METHODS: Mathematical modeling using first-order mixing methods were used to assess mixing. RESULTS: The Kaiser method of injecting 0.5 mL × 100 μg/0.1 mL does not achieve the desired 500 μg level of moxifloxacin in the AC. The "straight from the bottle" method of injecting 0.1 mL × 500 μg/0.1 mL is fraught with potential error, yielding a relatively unreliable final amount in the AC. Injecting 0.5 to 0.6 mL × 150 μg/0.1 mL yields a result closest to the desired goal. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the calculation, the most accurate of current methods to deliver 500 μg moxifloxacin intracamerally is the method of 150 μg/0.1 mL × 0.5 to 0.6 mL.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".