Corneal Transplants for the Treatment of Congenital Corneal Opacities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the results of corneal transplants in infants and young children with congenital corneal disorders. METHODS: The charts of 38 children who underwent corneal transplantation for congenital corneal opacities from 1988 to 1999 at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, were reviewed. Parameters reviewed included indication, age at diagnosis and surgery, graft size, graft clarity, repeat surgery, glaucoma pre- and postsurgery, visual acuity, and refraction. RESULTS: Thirty-eight children (63 eyes) underwent 86 corneal transplants. The four most common indications for surgery included posterior polymorphous dystrophy, Peters anomaly, congenital glaucoma, and sclerocornea. Mean follow-up was 40.4 +/- 30.2 months (range, 2-111 months). Seventy-eight percent of the grafts were clear at the final follow-up visit. There were 23 repeat grafts in the entire group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall success rate of graft clarity was 78% for children undergoing corneal transplantation for congenitally opaque corneas. Best results were achieved in patients with posterior polymorphous dystrophy, followed by patients with Peters anomaly. Sclerocornea and congenital glaucoma carried a 50% chance of success, with repeated transplants needed for many of the eyes.
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".