Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postoperative endophthalmitis (PE) is an inflammatory reaction due to an intraocular infection of the eye. Endophthalmitis is a rare but devastating complication after cataract surgery having a poor visual prognosis with 49% to 53% of patients achieving a final visual acuity of 20/40 or better, despite optimum treatment. 1–3 The reported incidence varies with time, the specific surgical procedure, and the methods of chemoprophylaxis. At present, the overall incidence rate of endophthalmitis following phacoemulsification is reported to be 0.04% to 0.38%, 4–11 with evidence of this incidence increasing that coincides with sutureless clear corneal incisions and topical anesthesia. A recent study showed a slightly higher incidence of endophthalmitis with clear corneal incisions (0.053%) compared with sclerocorneal incisions (0.036%) in a patient cohort of more than 225,000 cases. 9 The possible association between unsutured clear corneal cataract incisions, topical anesthesia, and postoperative endophthalmitis has been widely discussed in the literature. Aside from the difficulty of draping and isolating lashes with the use of topical anesthesia, extraocular fluid can enter the anterior chamber through sutureless incisions as a result of intraocular pressure (IOP) variations in the early postoperative period with forceful blinking and squeezing combined with contraction of extraocular muscles, which may be the cause of PE. 10 , 12–14 A corneal “tongue,” or reverted triangular flap of posterior corneal tissue, may hinder wound alignment and result in wound incompetence after phacoemulsification. 15 However, other clinical studies have not shown an association between clear corneal incisions and endophthalmitis. 3 , 6 , 9 , 16 A recent Canadian study reported a decreasing trend in the rate of PE, with the most significant decrease occurring in 2005 when fourth-generation topical fluoroquinolones had been prescribed postoperatively. 17 Clinical evidence implicates vitreous exposure, older patient age, and wound integrity as risk factors for PE. The endophthalmitis rate was approximately 10-fold higher in those with capsular rupture compared with those without. 18
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.023 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".