MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410122439 · doi:10.24908/pocusj.v10i01.18110

Acute Traumatic Cataract Diagnosed by Ocular Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Emergency Department

2025· article· en· W4410122439 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adrian Huffard, Shannon Overholt, Taryn Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPoint of care ultrasoundEtiologyEmergency ultrasoundEmergency physicianPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: It is estimated that over 55 million people suffer ocular injuries each year. Of these injuries, approximately 1.6 million are found to suffer permanent visual impairment secondary to traumatic cataract. Although a traumatic cataract can be a vision threatening pathology, it may be overlooked or difficult to diagnose. The objective of this report is to demonstrate the utility of ocular point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in the emergency department while highlighting its potential to diagnose a traumatic cataract. Case. Report: A 66-year-old man presented to the emergency department with suspected cervical spine injury after being involved in a bicycle accident. During the secondary survey, the patient developed sudden painless loss of vision in his left eye. Computed tomography (CT) and external ocular exam did not reveal the cause of his vision loss. Emergency physicians employed the use of point of care ultrasound POCUS to diagnose an acute traumatic cataract as the etiology, which was later confirmed by Ophthalmology. Conclusion: With the adoption of ocular POCUS as a staple in emergency medicine residency training, this case is testimony to its growing functionality in the setting of ocular trauma. We pose that it may aid as a diagnostic tool, avoid gratuitous testing, and ultimately expedite specialist evaluation and definitive treatment.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207