MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415205240 · doi:10.3390/biomimetics10100691

Efficacy and Safety of Kahook Dual Blade Goniotomy and Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent in Combination with Cataract Extraction

2025· article· en· W4415205240 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Y. Wu, Shuixian Qian, Lysa Houadj, Michael Marchand

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomimetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucomaGlaucoma medicationAdverse effectStentIntraocular pressureRetrospective cohort studyReduction (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, rapid advancements in glaucoma research have led to the development of more effective treatments of this chronic and irreversible condition. Of these, Kahook Blade Dual (KDB) goniotomy and second-generation trabecular micro-bypass stent (iStent) are two novel biomimetic procedures which have designs inspired by the eye’s natural drainage mechanisms. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of both surgeries by including 176 eyes from 110 patients: 142 eyes in the iStent group and 34 in the KDB group. The primary outcomes of this study were the proportions of patients in each group attaining a 20% reduction in IOP and a post-operative IOP < 19 mmHg. At the last follow-up, a 20% reduction in IOP was achieved by 67% of iStent inject patients and 50% of KDB patients (p = 0.07). The iStent group also showed a higher proportion of patients reaching an IOP of less than 19 mmHg (81% vs. 71% in the KDB group, p = 0.13). The number of medications did not decrease in either group from pre-op to the last follow-up. The KDB group had more failures (29.4% vs. 4.2%) and a significantly higher adverse event rate than the iStent inject group (47.1% vs 12.0%).

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomimeticsSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207