Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Mydrin-P Microdrops Over Standard Dose Mydrin-P for Pupil Dilation in Retinopathy of Prematurity Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a reduced dose of Mydrin-P (0.5% tropicamide and 0.5% phenylephrine hydrochloride) (Santen Pharmaceutical) using micro-drops with standard Mydrin-P eye drops for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) examinations. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority study was conducted in a single neonatal intensive care unit in Hong Kong. Eighteen infants with an estimated gestational age at birth of 32 weeks or less and/or birth weight of 1,500 g or less were recruited and randomized to receive either standard Mydrin-P eye drops or Mydrin-P microdrops (one-third of the standard dose). All patients were subsequently examined by an ophthalmologist for the presence of ROP. Serial pupil diameters and other clinical parameters were also measured after mydriatics were applied. RESULTS: = .233). Mean pupil diameter did not differ between the microdrop (5.73 mm) and standard eye drop (5.47 mm) groups at the time of examination. No statistically significant difference in systemic side effects was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mydriatic Mydrin-P microdrops demonstrated similar efficacy compared to standard Mydrin-P eye drops and should replace standard Mydrin-P for ROP screening in preterm infants with potentially fewer side effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".