MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534634769 · doi:10.3928/1081-597x-20060501-11

Corneal and Epithelial Thickness in Keratoconus: A Comparison of Ultrasonic Pachymetry, Orbscan II, and Optical Coherence Tomography

2006· article· en· W1534634769 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refractive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeratoconusCorneaOphthalmologyOptical coherence tomographyMedicineCorneal topographyCorneal pachymetryOpticsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare corneal thickness measurements in individuals with keratoconus using optical coherence tomography (OCT), Orbscan II, and ultrasonic pachymetry and to measure epithelial and stromal thickness in these individuals using OCT. METHODS: Twenty individuals with keratoconus and 20 controls (without keratoconus) were enrolled. The Orbscan II was used to locate the steepest area of the cornea, which was taken to represent the cone apex. Each instrument was used to obtain four total corneal thickness measurements-from the cone apex, corneal center, mid-nasal, and mid-temporal cornea. Optical coherence tomography scans were analyzed to provide epithelial and stromal thickness readings. RESULTS: In individuals with keratoconus, mean central corneal thickness (CCT) measured by ultrasonic pachymetry, Orbscan, and OCT was 494.2 +/- 50.0 microm, 438.6 +/- 47.7 microm, and 433.5 +/- 39.7 microm, respectively. The central keratoconic cornea was 57.7 microm thinner than the normal cornea (post-hoc P<.001). The cone apex was thinner than the central cornea (P<.001). Keratoconic epithelium was 48.2 +/- 5.5 microm centrally and 42.1 +/- 4.5 microm at the apex. Central keratoconic epithelium was 4.7 microm thinner and central keratoconic stroma was 57.8 microm thinner than the normal cornea (P<.001, respectively). Comparing instruments, Orbscan and OCT correlated in CCT measurement (r=0.890) and apical thickness (r=0.846). All instruments produced similar readings for mid-nasal and mid-temporal corneal thickness in participants with keratoconus (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic pachymetry produced the highest corneal thickness readings in the center and apex, compared to Orbscan II and OCT. Centrally, the total cornea, epithelium, and stroma were thinner in individuals with keratoconus than in normal individuals.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · 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