Mydriatic and Cardiovascular Effects of Phenylephrine 2.5% versus Phenylephrine 10%, Both Associated with Tropicamide 1%
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate and compare cardiovascular effects (blood pressure and heart rate) of phenylephrine 2.5% versus phenylephrine 10%, and compare pupil diameter before and after instillation of eyedrops. METHODS: A total of 58 patients scheduled for funduscopy were dilated with either phenylephrine 2.5% and tropicamide 1% (group 0, n = 29 patients, 58 eyes) or phenylephrine 10% and tropicamide 1% (group 1, n = 29 patients, 58 eyes). Only one drop per eye of each drug was administered. In both groups, pupil diameter, blood pressure and heart rate were measured before and 40 min after eyedrop instillation. RESULTS: We did not observe significant changes in blood pressure or heart rate. Mean pupil diameter in group 0, before the instillation of eyedrops, was 3.51 mm and, in group 1, 2.66 mm. After medication, mean values were 7.38 mm in group 0 and 7.42 mm in group 1. Mean variation was 3.87 mm in group 0 and 4.76 mm in group 1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results corroborate the finding that one single drop of either 2.5 or 10% phenylephrine is safe and, when 1% tropicamide is combined, satisfactory pupil dilation is achieved.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".