Topical 2% cyclosporine A in preservative-free artificial tears for the treatment of vernal keratoconjunctivitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A double-masked, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of topical 2% cyclosporine A in preservative-free artificial tears for patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis. METHODS: Twenty patients with severe vernal keratoconjunctivitis were included in the study. All were treated with topical 2% cyclosporine A eye drops. One eye of each patient was administered 2% cyclosporine A in preservative-free artificial tears; the fellow eye received the placebo (vehicle) for the first 2 weeks, in a double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Thereafter, the placebo eye received cyclosporine A (open trial). Symptoms and signs were scored on the day of enrollment and at the end of week 2, 4, and 14. RESULTS: At the end of week 2, no statistically significant decrease was noted from baseline in mean scores of either signs (p = 0.18) or symptoms (p = 0.50) in the eyes that received placebo. On the other hand, a statistically significant decrease was observed in both sign and symptom scores (p < 0.001, for both) of eyes that received cyclosporine A. Significant differences were also noted at 2 weeks in mean scores of both signs and symptoms (p < 0.001, for both) between the eyes that received cyclosporine A and those that received placebo. At week 4 and 14, statistically significant decreases in both sign scores and symptom scores were noted compared with baseline in the eyes that received cyclosporine A and in the eyes that had initially received placebo (p < 0.001, for all). INTERPRETATION: Topical 2% cyclosporine A in preservative-free artificial tears is effective in alleviating signs and symptoms of patients with severe vernal keratoconjunctivitis and had no observed side effects over the course of the study.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".