Etiology and management of uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome: a comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome, initially described in 1978, presents as an iatrogenic complication associated with contact between intraocular implant and ocular tissue. This syndrome encompasses a spectrum of clinical manifestations, including intraocular inflammation, elevated intraocular pressure, and recurrent hemorrhage. Advances in cataract surgery techniques reduced the incidence of early intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation while inversely increased rates of delayed dislocation. The primary etiology of UGH syndrome is IOL subluxation. Weakness of the ciliary zonules or unstable IOL fixation techniques may predispose the eye to iris-lens contact. Other contributing factors include Soemmering's ring formation, abnormal iris and ciliary body anatomy, positional changes, and improper positioning of glaucoma implants. Clinical examination and imaging modalities such as ultrasound biomicroscopy and anterior segment optical coherence tomography supports diagnosis of UGH. Treatment options range from observation and medical therapies to invasive procedures such as laser therapy, IOL repositioning, or replacement. Endoscopy provides direct visualization for identifying causes intraoperatively, aiding in tailored surgical approaches towards minimal intervention. In conclusion, UGH syndrome poses a complex clinical challenge, emphasizing the importance of understanding its etiology, accurate diagnosis, and personalized management strategies to mitigate its impact on visual function and ensure favorable outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".