A Randomized, Controlled Comparison of 180 Versus 360 Degrees Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty in Open Angle Glaucoma and Glaucoma Suspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRCIS: Three hundred sixty degrees selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) produces greater intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering effects with no changes in safety profile compared with 180 degrees SLT. PURPOSE: To determine whether there is any difference in the IOP lowering effects and safety profiles of 180 versus 360 degrees SLT, using a paired-eye design to limit confounders. METHODS: This single-center randomized control trial included patients presenting with treatment naïve open angle glaucoma or glaucoma suspects. Once enrolled, 1 eye was randomized to 180 degrees SLT, and the other was treated with 360 degrees SLT. Patients were followed for 1 year and assessed for change in visual acuity, Goldmann IOP, Humphrey visual fields, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, optical coherence tomography derived cup to disc ratio, and any adverse events or requirements for additional medical interventions. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (80 eyes) were included in the study. IOP in the 180 degrees group was reduced from 25.3±2.3 mm Hg to 21.5±2.7 mm Hg, and in the 360 degrees group, from 25.5±2.1 mm Hg to 19.9±2.6 mm Hg ( P <0.01), both at 1 year. There was no significant difference in the number of adverse events or serious adverse events in the 2 groups. There were no statistically significant differences in visual acuity, Humphrey visual field mean deviation, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, or C:D ratio at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: At 1 year, 360 degrees SLT was more efficacious at lowering IOP compared with 180 degrees SLT with a similar safety profile in patients with open angle glaucoma and glaucoma suspects. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".