MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398232698 · doi:10.1080/02713683.2024.2354438

Intrastromal Corneal Ring Implants Associated Bacterial Infections

2024· review· en· W4398232698 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Eye Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsOphthalmologyMedicineRing (chemistry)CorneaCorneal DiseasesKeratoconusChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study examines the incidence of infection and resistance associated with Intracorneal Ring Segment (ICRS) implantation, a common outpatient surgical treatment for correcting refractive errors and corneal ectatic diseases. Although ICRS procedures are typically safe and reversible, there is a low but notable risk of microbial infections, which require prompt and sometimes invasive treatment. METHODS: Three electronic databases, PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus, were utilised to search for literature according to PRISMA guidelines to identify infections related to the implantation of ICRS in the cornea between January 2000 and December 2022. RESULTS: infections tends to be poor compared to other bacterial infections. CONCLUSION: is a predominant pathogen that often requires surgical intervention with poor outcomes. Early infections result from incision gaps and ring segment rubbing, while late infections are linked to prolonged antibiotic use. Further research is needed on novel antimicrobial ICRS to procure the vision.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.522
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