MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387172212 · doi:10.1177/24741264231195675

Internal Plugging of a Traumatic Posterior Perforation Site Using Donor Sclera, Human Amniotic Membrane, and Fibrin Glue: A Novel Surgical Technique

2023· article· en· W4387172212 on OpenAlexaff
Erdit Celo, Ashley Whelan, Christopher Seamone, R. Rishi Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScleraMedicineRetinal detachmentFibrin glueTamponadeSurgeryPerforationProliferative vitreoretinopathyVitrectomyOphthalmologyVisual acuityRetinalAnatomyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To describe a novel surgical approach to treat traumatic posterior perforating injuries. Methods: A case and its findings were analyzed. Results: A 21-year-old man presented with bilateral intraocular foreign bodies that were sustained while hammering a metal railway pin. In the left eye, the foreign body was embedded in the posterior scleral wall, resulting in a 2 mm × 6 mm posterior perforation and partial retinal detachment. Silicone oil tamponade could optimize the chances for retinal reattachment; however, there was concern that the silicone oil would migrate through the posterior defect and into the orbit. Therefore, the perforation site was filled using a 3-layer plug consisting of donor sclera, human amniotic membrane, and fibrin glue. The silicone oil was successfully maintained within the globe; however, the final visual acuity was limited due to proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of the 3-layer plug technique should be further validated in similar cases.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VitreoRetinal DiseasesSame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207