MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386090885 · doi:10.1080/01676830.2023.2248621

Influence of orbital decompression on upper eyelid retraction in Graves’ orbitopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4386090885 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Al-Qadi, Ahsen Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueOrbit · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversité de MonctonUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDecompressionOrbit (dynamics)EyelidSurgeryMeta-analysisGraves' ophthalmopathyGraves' diseaseDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graves'-associated upper eyelid retraction (GAUER) is the commonest manifestation of orbitopathy in adults. Surgical management typically follows a 3-step staged approach commencing with orbital decompression. The rationale behind this is that certain surgical interventions can influence the parameters and outcomes of subsequent procedures. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of orbital decompression on GAUER in adult patients with Graves’ orbitopathy. All original English, non-pediatric studies meeting the study inclusion criteria from the last 20 years were included. The characteristics of margin reflex distance 1 (MRD-1) pre- and post-orbital decompression of 688 orbits were collected, and a meta-analysis of 472 orbits was performed. The average reduction in MRD-1 across 688 orbits was found to be 0.40 mm. Meta-analysis of 6 applicable articles demonstrated that orbital decompression decreases MRD-1 by an average of 0.35 mm (n = 472, p = .007, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.63]). This study demonstrates that although statistically significant, orbital decompression does not appear to have a clinically significant effect on GAUER. This has implications for clinical practice, namely the likely requirement of eyelid surgery following or in combination with orbital decompression, and the importance of counselling patients on this preoperatively.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.019
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrbitSame topicOphthalmology and Eye DisordersFrench-language works237,207