MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anterior chamber cytokine production and postoperative macular edema in patients with diabetes undergoing FLACS

2023· article· en· W4387692122 on OpenAlexaffabout
Milena Cioana, Yogesh Patodia, Lili Tong, Hannah H. Chiu, Eric Tam, Sohel Somani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational TherapistsWilliam Osler Health SystemMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyDiabetes mellitusMacular edemaEdemaSurgeryVisual acuityEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and manual cataract surgery (MCS) on proinflammatory cytokine expression in patients with diabetes vs nondiabetic patients. SETTING: Outpatient surgical center in Vaughan, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients with diabetes and nondiabetic patients undergoing noncomplicated MCS or FLACS were assigned into 4 cohorts: MCS nondiabetic (n = 30), FLACS nondiabetic (n = 42), MCS diabetic (n = 40), and FLACS diabetic (n = 40). Aqueous humor inflammatory mediator concentrations were evaluated at MCS onset and after femtosecond laser treatment. The presence of cystoid macular edema, anterior chamber (AC) inflammation, central retinal thickness, macular volume, and retinal microvascular changes (through optical coherence tomography angiography) were evaluated preoperatively and on postoperative day 1, week 1, month 1 (POM1), and month 3 (POM3). RESULTS: Patients with diabetes receiving FLACS had a higher concentration of interleukin (IL)-7, IL-13, and interferon-induced protein-10 than MCS diabetic patients; they also demonstrated higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and lower levels of interferon (IFN)-γ, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and IFN-α2 compared with MCS nondiabetic patients. Macular volume appeared to be significantly higher in MCS diabetic vs MCS non-diabetic patients at POM1 and between FLACS diabetic vs FLACS nondiabetic patients at POM3. There were no other significant differences between the cohorts for any parameter. CONCLUSIONS: FLACS use in patients with diabetes demonstrated some differences in AC cytokine expression compared with non-diabetic FLACS or diabetic patients undergoing MCS; however, there was no increase in clinical inflammatory biomarkers. FLACS seems to be a safe technique to use in patients with diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207