Literature Review Contemporary pseudo-exfoliation glaucoma management and treatment options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PXFG) is known as the most common secondary open angle glaucoma. Accumulation of exfoliative debris in the angle and subsequent IOP elevations is thought to help make PXFG more recalcitrant to topical/medical therapy than primary open angle glaucoma. Laser therapy treatment in the form of selective laser trabeculoplasty for open angle PXFG is therefore discussed. Attention is also called however to the risk of an angle closure component in PXFG eyes and several possible mechanisms behind this. A literature-based discussion on the risks and benefits of laser peripheral iridotomy or cataract surgery to open the angle follows. Literature on the many microinvasive glaucoma surgery options (MIGS) available for PXFG is also reviewed. We provide an overview of MIGS subtypes and summarize study data on several of the better studied options for PXFG. The efficacy and risks of filtering procedures including trabeculectomy and tube shunts for PXFG is also examined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".