MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401729278 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304566

Duration of face down positioning following full-thickness macular hole repair: A protocol for a randomized pilot study

2024· article· en· W4401729278 on OpenAlexaff
Keean Nanji, Paola L. Oquendo, Sangeetha Srinivasan, Chinmayi Vyas, Femin Prasad, Forough Farrokhyar, Varun Chaudhary

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrectomyTamponadePars planaMacular holeMedicineRandomized controlled trialVisual acuityOphthalmologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Full-thickness macular holes (FTMH) are defects in the fovea involving all neural retinal layers. They reduce patients' visual acuity (VA) and impact their quality of life. FTMHs are repaired with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intraocular gas tamponade and post-operative face-down positioning (FDP). There is no consensus regarding the ideal positioning requirements following FTMH repair and there lacks clear guidelines on the topic. While analysis of global practice patterns indicates that between 5-7 days is the most common duration suggested by surgeons, there is significant heterogeneity in surgeon preferences. There is, however, biological plausibility to support minimal or even no FDP following surgery and given the disabling nature of FDP for patients, there is a need to better assess key patient outcomes with different FDP durations. As such, this prospective randomized controlled pilot trial will compare 3-days of FDP to 7-days of FDP following PPV for FTMH. METHODS: This single-centered, parallel-group randomized controlled pilot trial will randomize patients 1:1 following PPV to 3 days or 7 days of FDP. This investigation has been approved by the local ethics board (HiREB # 16100) and has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06000111). The primary objective will be focused on assessing the feasibility of a larger trial; this will be determined through an assessment of the recruitment rate, retention rate, completion rate and recruitment time. The secondary outcomes involve assessment of the following patient-important outcomes a) macular hole closure rate, b) best-recorded VA, c) a general quality of life measure and vision-specific quality of life measure, d) patient compliance and e) complication rates. Outcomes will be evaluated at 3 months following surgery. DISCUSSION: The results of this pilot study will determine the feasibility of a larger-scale trial that will answer a patient important question with clinical equipoise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.010

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207