Association Between Unilateral Quiescent Stromal Herpetic Keratitis and Bilateral Dry Eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: According to our clinical observation, patients with quiescent herpes simplex virus (HSV) stromal keratitis often seem to present with signs of dry eye in the contralateral eye. Our goal was to compare dry eye signs and symptoms in both eyes of patients with quiescent HSV stromal keratitis with those of age- and sex-matched control subjects with healthy corneas. METHODS: A case-control study with 24 subjects per group. RESULTS: The average age of 10 men and 14 women in each group was 58 years. The HSV eye of cases was first compared with the contralateral eye with a healthy cornea. As expected, the HSV eye had a significantly lower corneal sensation threshold (P = 0.001); no significant difference was however found for Schirmer tests done with anesthesia (basal tear secretion) and without anesthesia, tear breakup time, mucus and debris in the tear film, and eyelid margin redness or swelling. Then, the HSV eye of cases was compared with the right eye of controls, whereas the healthy eye of cases was compared with the left eye of controls. Patients with unilateral quiescent HSV stromal keratitis had significantly lower bilateral Schirmer tests both with anesthesia (P = 0.001) and without anesthesia (P = 0.02). Dry eye symptoms of the healthy cornea of cases and those of controls did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Both eyes of patients with quiescent HSV stromal keratitis in our population were dry even if many patients with HSV stromal keratitis did not have symptoms in their fellow eye.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".