MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379518739 · doi:10.1177/24741264231176137

Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Vitreomacular Traction Resulting in Persistent Postoperative Loculated Foveal Subretinal Fluid

2023· article· en· W4379518739 on OpenAlexaff
Darcie S. Wilson, Ashlyn Pinto, R. Rishi Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrectomyPars planaOphthalmologyMedicineEpiretinal membraneMacular holeFovealPhacoemulsificationVisual acuityOptical coherence tomographyRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To describe a case of postoperative persistent loculated subretinal fluid (SRF) that developed after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome. Methods: A case was analyzed and a literature review performed. Results: A healthy 64-year-old man with no significant ocular history presented with persistent, symptomatic VMT. Combined phacoemulsification and PPV, epiretinal membrane and internal limiting membrane peeling, and gas–fluid exchange were performed. Postoperative spectral-domain optical coherence tomography imaging showed loculated foveal SRF. The SRF persisted for 8 months, with minimal change in size and little best-corrected visual acuity improvement. Conclusions: Although persistent loculated SRF has been reported after vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD) in high myopia and tractional RD in diabetes, it has not yet been reported postoperatively after PPV for VMT. Studies of the pathophysiology and long-term course of persistent SRF after PPV for VMT are needed to inform management decisions for this rare complication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VitreoRetinal DiseasesSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207