From Peel to Plug: Sealing The Gap With Surgical Innovations For Macular Hole Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surgical management of macular holes (MH) has evolved significantly over the past few decades. In 1991, Kelly and Wendel revolutionized MH repair by introducing pars plana vitrectomy combined with air fluid exchange. Eckardt et al. in 1997 further advanced and improved the success of macular hole closure by introducing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, establishing the gold standard for idiopathic MH treatment. The subsequent development of micro-incision vitrectomy systems, particularly 25- and 27-gauge instrumentation, has resulted in better wound sealing, reduced postoperative inflammation, and faster visual recovery. These technological advancements laid the foundation for more complex surgical approaches, especially in complex cases such as large, recurrent, persistent, traumatic or myopic MHs. Contemporary techniques now include a variety of ILM flap methods (e.g., inverted, temporal, single-layer, and multilayered/petal flaps), autologous ILM transplantation (AILMT), human amniotic membrane (hAM) grafts, and autologous retinal transplantation (ART).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".