Corneal Graft Outcome Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine overall 2- and 5-year corneal graft survival rates and to identify risk factors for corneal graft failure in our patient population. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 696 patients undergoing corneal transplantation performed by a single surgeon at The Toronto Western Hospital over a 7.5-year period. RESULTS: A total of 468 eyes met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, the 2- and 5-year graft survival rates were 78.8% and 64.5%, respectively. In a univariate analysis, patient age, gender, history of glaucoma, preoperative diagnosis, type of operative procedure, and postoperative factors all were shown to be significantly associated with graft survival. In a multivariate analysis, six independent predictors of graft failure were identified: preoperative diagnosis, neovascularization of the graft, the presence of peripheral anterior synechiae, gender, occurrence of one or more rejection episodes, and age of the recipient at the time of corneal transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of graft failure can vary substantially within a population of patients receiving a corneal transplant. The outcomes of this study concur with the risk factors for corneal graft failure in the literature and can be used as prognostic guidelines for both surgeons and patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".