MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W955764559 · doi:10.4103/0974-9233.56230

Ahmed glaucoma valve implant: experience in East Africa.

2009· article· en· W955764559 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Kiage, Dan Gradin, Stephen Gichuhi, K. F. Damji

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucoma valveGlaucomaOptometryImplantOphthalmologyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe short term outcomes of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve [AGV] implantation in East African patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multi-center retrospective case series we reviewed eyes of Black African patients with refractory glaucoma, treated consecutively with Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation, in two centers in Kenya between January 2006 and October 2007. RESULTS: About 25 cases including 18 [72%] pediatric eyes and seven [28%] adult eyes were identified. Results have been presented with a median follow-up of two months with inter-quartile range [IQR] of one to 12 months. intraocular pressure [IOP] was reduced from a mean of 36.4 mmHg preoperatively to 16.7 mmHg and glaucoma medications were lowered from a mean of 1.32 before surgery to 0.2 after surgery. The success rate during short term follow-up was 79%. The mean visual acuity dropped slightly from 6/18 pre-operatively to 6/24. There was only one major complication of an extruded, infected valve in a child. CONCLUSIONS: The Ahmed Valve Implant is safe and effective in lowering IOP for the short term in pediatric and adult East African patients with refractory glaucoma. Further studies with more patients and longer term follow-up are needed in this population.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207