MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407840740 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1522167

Modified protocol for pterygium surgery without blades and electrocoagulation

2025· article· en· W4407840740 on OpenAlexaff
Huimin Ge, Guo-Fan Cao, Jian Wang, Shu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrocoagulationPterygiumProtocol (science)MedicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of a blade- and cautery-free surgical protocol for pterygium removal. Methods: Pterygium removal surgery was done in 69 eyes (67 patients; 24 males and 43 females) who were followed up for at least 6 months. The surgery was characterized by blunt separation of the pterygium from the head to the limbal arc using the tip of Vannas scissors and modified procedures, such as transpositional flapping and suture closure. Neither a blade nor a cautery was used. Results: The reported subjects were 60.7 years old on average, and most of them had primary pterygium (66 out of 69). The proposed surgical protocol was simple to perform, requiring an average operation time of 18.7 min which was shorter than that of the suture and fibrin glue groups mentioned in relevant reports. Post-anesthesia pain was relieved quickly 1 day after surgery without the use of pain killers. During the follow-up period of 11.3 ± 3.1 months, recurrence of pterygium requiring additional surgery was seen in only three eyes (4.3%). Conclusion: The potential of the examined protocol as an easy, efficient, and reliable approach was demonstrated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207