MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996920186 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e3181a186dc

Boston Keratoprosthesis Outcomes and Complications

2009· article· en· W1996920186 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

VenueCornea · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioCNIB FoundationUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineEndophthalmitisKeratoprosthesisGlaucomaSurgeryOphthalmologyIntraocular pressureVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of the Boston Keratoprosthesis (KPro) at our institution. METHODS: A computerized database retrospectively identified all patients who received a Boston KPro from August 2005 to October 2007. RESULTS: There were 37 patients, 24 (65%) were male. Mean age was 66.3 years (median 69 years, range: 24-93 years; SD = 18.1 years). Mean follow-up was 16 months (range: 6-28 months; SD = 6.0 months). There were 36 type 1 (97%) and 1 type 2 (3%) KPros. The primary indication was failed penetrating keratoplasty in 29 patients (78%)-22 (59%) from multiple failures. Preoperative comorbidities included glaucoma [27 patients (73%)] and limbal stem cell deficiency [13 patients (35%)]. No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative complications included retroprosthetic membrane [24 patients (65%)], increased intraocular pressure [14 patients (38%)], glaucoma progression [5 patients (13.5%)], and endophthalmitis [4 patients (11%)-3 who discontinued prophylactic antibiotics secondary to compliance]. Thirty-six KPros (97%) were retained-1 type 2 KPro (3%) in a patient with ocular cicatricial pemphigoid extruded and was replaced. Mean best-corrected visual acuities were counting fingers preoperatively (range: light perception to 20/100) and 20/90 at last follow-up (range: light perception to 20/25). At last follow-up, 31 patients (84%) improved 2 lines or greater-3 patients (8%) had worse vision. CONCLUSIONS: Retention rates were excellent, and best-corrected visual acuities improved in the vast majority of patients. Complications can occur and require frequent follow-up to monitor and treat glaucoma progression, endophthalmitis, and inflammation. Patient compliance is of paramount importance. Despite the potential complications, the Boston KPro provides visual improvement in patients with an otherwise poor prognosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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