Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To present preliminary results on the implantation of biosynthetic corneal grafts into human corneas. Methods Ten collagen biosynthetic corneas were implanted into human corneas by deep lamellar keratoplasty and have been followed for 6 months. Nine of the patients initially had keraatoconus and one had a scar following a bacterial keratitis. The eyes recieved a postoperative treatment of topical steroids and antibiotics for 1‐2 moths. The patients were analyzed clinically, photographed, and tested for sensitivity. They were examined with pachymetry, in‐vivo confocal microscopy, and anterior segment OCT. Results Following implantation the sutures were removed typically after 5‐6 weeks. During the 6 months follow‐up the vision improved and the graft surface became more even. After 6 months nerves started to emerge and cellular invasion of the constructs could be identified to a varying degree. Some thinning of the grafts was identified which appeared to be an adaptation to the host corneal thickness. Of the 10 patients one suffered a minor bacterial keratitis at the edge of the graft and one patient was temporarily treated using an amniotic membrane coverage to achieve epithelialization of the surface. Conclusion The constructs used were well‐integrated into the recipient corneas. They are biocompatible without appearant untoward reactions. The surface is readily covered with epithelium and the nerves are staring to re‐emerge. Thinning may be a concern but this can be adjusted for by altering the graft material.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".