PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY WITH OR WITHOUT INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEEL FOR MACULAR HOLE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for macular hole (MH). METHODS: A systematic literature search on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed from January 2000 to 2023. The primary outcome was the final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Secondary outcomes included MH closure rates and the need for repeat surgery. The authors performed a random-effects meta-analysis on Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: Fourteen studies on 880 eyes were included. Pars plana vitrectomy with and without ILM peel achieved a similar final BCVA ( P = 0.66). However, pars plana vitrectomy without ILM peeling achieved a significantly better final BCVA in eyes with closed MHs (WMD = 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI, 0.01-0.10, P = 0.02). Pars plana vitrectomy with ILM peeling achieved a significantly higher primary MH closure rate (RR = 1.21, 95% CI, 1.04-1.42, P = 0.02) and lower incidence of MH reoperation (RR = 0.19, 95% CI, 0.11-0.33, P < 0.001). The final MH closure rate ( P = 0.12) and incidence of MH recurrence ( P = 0.25) were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Pars plana vitrectomy with and without ILM peel achieved a similar final BCVA. However, pars plana vitrectomy without ILM peeling achieved a better final BCVA in eyes with closed MHs. ILM peeling achieved a greater primary MH closure rate and reduced need for reoperation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it