Reversibility and exchangeability of intrastromal corneal ring segments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of removal and/or exchange of intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS, Intacs); specifically the risk factors, degree of reversibility, and visual outcomes. SETTING: Gimbel Eye Centres, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Prospective cohort data were collected on 71 eyes that had ICRS placement by 3 surgeons at the Gimbel Eye Centres between August 1998 and July 1999. Data included patient symptoms, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), manifest refraction, reason for removal or replacement, keratometry, corneal topography, and complications. RESULTS: Twenty-four eyes (33.8%) had exchange or removal procedures because of underresponse, 20 eyes; overresponse, 2 eyes; and induced astigmatism and shallow placement, 1 eye each. Secondary procedures were removal and replacement, removal with subsequent laser in situ keratomileusis, and segment repositioning. Two risk factors for secondary surgery were identified: high preoperative refractive astigmatism and postoperative spherical equivalent greater than +/-0.5 diopter (D). The 6 eyes that had ICRS removal stabilized to within +/-0.25 D of the original refractive error with no surgically induced astigmatism within 1 to 7 weeks (mean 4 weeks) and had a final UCVA of 20/20 or better. In the 15 eyes that had ICRS exchange procedures, the UCVA improved by at least 1 line and median UCVA improved from 20/40 to 20/20. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data from this study indicate that removal of segments resulted in reversal of the refractive effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".